Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Juries (Peremptory Challenge)

Mr. Clive Soley: I should like to present a petition given to me by Paul Newman and signed by some 500 pupils and students of the four Inns of Court—Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn. It asks the House to protect the right of peremptory challenge, which is being questioned in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (Amendment) Bill.
To lie upon the Table.

Order of the day

Crossbows Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am especially pleased to introduce my Bill, just as I was when I heard my name drawn in Committee Room 10 by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 20 November. I must take this opportunity to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and Opposition Members for sponsoring the Bill. It is a short and, I am sure the House agrees, non-controversial Bill which is designed to outlaw the sale of crossbows to people under the age of 17.
I am indebted to a treatise on the crossbow which was published in 1903, called "The Crossbow Medieval and Modern: Military and Sporting, its Construction History and Management." It was written by Sir Ralph PayneGallwey, Baronet. I know from that treatise that crossbows were first brought into England by the Normans in 1066. As far as I can gather, they were well received, although William 11 was accidently killed by one in 1100 when hunting deer in the New Forest. The bolt came from the crossbow of Sir Walter Tirel.
William II, Henry I, Stephen and Henry II all employed crossbowmen, who were chiefly foreign mercenaries, in their armies. Crossbowmen were much encouraged by Richard I, who to a considerable extent reintroduced the crossbow and caused it to be a common arm of warfare.
After the death of Richard I, John and Henry III used considerable numbers of crossbowmen in their armies, whether mounted or on foot. At the second battle of Lincoln in 1217, during the civil war, the relieving force consisted of 317 crossbowmen. It is clear that crossbows were a powerful and useful weapon in those days. They were successful and commonly used in warfare.
Crossbowmen were finally discarded in open warfare by all continental armies between 1522 and 1525. They were still used on foreign ships and in the defence or attack of a besieged town or castle. The Church also had problems with the crossbow. That seems to be true of many things. In 1621 the crossbow was the subject of a commission formed by 12 bishops who, at the request of James I, inquired into the death of Peter Hawkins, a park keeper at Bramshill in Hampshire, who was accidentally slain by Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury while the prelate was out hunting. He was aiming at a stag.
Crossbow laws are among the oldest in the country and were repealed not long ago. Crossbows were commonly used in the 15th century for shooting deer and bucks. Those in authority greatly feared that if people practised with them they would become easily manipulated weapons, whereas longbows required skill and guaranteed a far better use, especially in times of national danger. Therefore, at length it was enacted — with certain reservations, as in the case of nobles and persons of wealth—that the possession of a crossbow among the people of England, even for sporting purposes, should be forbidden by law. One can see in the Royal Gallery a copy of "An Act regulating shooting with crossbows" which


was published in 1512. That Act restricted the right to use a crossbow to lords and to owners of land of a yearly value of 300 marks, that is £200. Its object was, as I have said, to encourage others to use the longbow, which was still regarded as very important for the defence of the kingdom. Indeed, when crossbows were again allowed in 1536, they were still not allowed in the King's parks and in the forests.
There were many statutes dealing with the crossbow. The last one was passed by Parliament in 1542 and imposed a heavy fine. People were very concerned at that time about the need to suppress this weapon. It was stated that:
Divers murders had been perpetrated by means of crossbows, and that malicious and evil-minded people carried them ready bent and charged with bolts, to the great annoyance and risk of passengers on the highways.
Certainly, the introduction of statutes against crossbows and hand guns to prevent the yeomen and peasantry of England from practising with, or even handling, a weapon of any sort — other than the cherished longbow — suggested that it was feared that even a hand gun might cause people to put less trust in the longbow and that the longbow was considered the more sophisticated weapon.
Those are years gone by. Since then—I bring it right up to the present day — there have been many tragic incidents involving crossbows. I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which has presented me with a useful list of statistics showing that, although animals have certainly suffered the most, even humans have been severely injured by crossbows.
In October 1986, there was a human casualty, resulting in a prosecution and conviction in Newcastle. In April 1986, a duck was severely injured with a bolt in Bristol. In March 1986 there were reports of calves and ducks shot in the Nottingham area. Also in 1986, calves were shot on a farm at Eton, Windsor. In January 1986, a duck was shot at Whitley Bay, Northumberland. In July 1985, a dog was killed. There was no prosecution, but the bow was destroyed. In February 1986, a cat was killed. There was no trace of the attacker. In January 1986, a duck was shot in Cumbria. Again, there was no trace of the attacker. In September 1984, sheep were killed in the Swansea area. There have been many other incidents. Indeed, since 1979, 161 animals have either been severely injured or tragically killed. The statistics go right across from swans to deer, to geese, to ducks, to cattle, to wild birds and to cats.
The cats lobby especially supports my Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has been at the forefront in representing the interests of the cat world. Dogs, sheep, horses and rabbits have been killed. It is a tragedy that so many of these innocent animals have been killed, purely because of the ease with which certain people can get hold of crossbows.
I have some awful pictures, which I cannot show to the House, of cats and swans which have literally gone away to die after being fatally injured with a bolt. There is a callousness in the inability of our young people to respect animals. The ease with which they can get a crossbow and then go out on to common land and shoot at a duck or at a calf seems inhumane. The punishment my Bill would bring in will, I hope, deter that sort of wanton destruction of humans and animals, both of which are defenceless.
I shall not go into the particular cases, but move on to the human injuries. One must appreciate that the statistics I have concern only the cases we have heard about. Many animals go away to die, and no one hears a word about them. However, there are many cases of misuse of crossbows as well. I have a report from the police which shows that, on the figures available to them, there have been five domestic incidents involving crossbows. One was a misuse of a crossbow, two were suicides and two were attempted suicides. The maniacs who tried to commit suicide with a crossbow must have been off their heads. That seems totally irresponsible. I am amazed that they did not die at the end of it. Ten people have been injured by crossbows. The police have on their files details of 25 animal deaths or injuries, 10 burglaries or thefts, and 54 incidents of criminal damage. There are three poaching and trespass cases and eight offensive weapons cases. That gives a total for 1986 of 115 specific cases.
The crossbow lobby is particularly worried. It fears that I might be having a big go at it. Crossbow supporters have said in a newspaper article, "We are not thugs."
I appreciate that, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of the Rambo exploits in Vietnam are being emulated by young people in Britain today. Certainly, Rambo's exploits in publicising the firing power of a crossbow have come over strongly and have been highlighted and glamourised. We are talking about a lethal weapon—a silent weapon of death that is tarnishing the sport's image. It is a sport, but photographs of animals and birds with crossbow bolts through their necks and reports of crossbows being used to commit the crimes that I have just mentioned have resulted in these weapons being seen as sinister. It is correct to say, as certain people of the Centaura Field Bowman Club feel, that, if one has a crossbow, one will immediately be tarnished as a thug. That is not true, of course, but nevertheless a ban for those under 17 is essential. The British Crossbow Association's secretary, Mr. Keith Reynolds, feels that the horror stories have been blown up out of proportion. The association welcomes my Bill. Its members feel that crossbows are far too easily obtainable by the wrong people, and that there is a need to restrict them. Mr. Reynolds has said,on behalf of the British Crossbow Association, that no one in the sport would argue with my Bill.
The aim of the sport is to fire at traditional circular-faced targets, and to take part in field shooting practices where the participants take to wooded areas and fire at drawings of wildlife. It is a sport which is growing in popularity, and one which many people believe will expand when it is given the added respectability that I hope that it will get with my Bill. Many people find it totally relaxing. It will need new members. We can talk in Committee, assuming my Bill gets a Second Reading, about the role of supervision of those under 17.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend made a reference to me. He will recall that exactly three years ago I presented a petition to the House which asked for stricter regulations for crossbows and other lethal weapons, not least air weapons. Will my hon. Friend say why he has picked the age of 17 as one of the provisions in his Bill? Is it because there are provisions relating to air weapons at the age of 17? Would he not agree that perhaps even a higher age, and certainly a minimum age of 18, might be more appropriate?

Mr. Bruinvels: The aim of my Bill, which I will develop, is to keep it in line with the legislation for air weapons. The incidents of crime at the moment occur with those under the age of 17. If we can get them at a young enough age, we will prevent them from becoming tomorrow's hoodlums. I am doing nothing that is different from the airgun legislation.
There has been a growing increase in cases of crossbows being taken to scenes of crime. On 4 December 1986 the Daily Telegraph reported that a manor house murderer had been gaoled for life. The article mentioned the young, armed, masked men breaking into the manor house. It stated
They were armed with crossbows to silence the woman's Great Dane, Prince, and her two boxer dogs. Clark carried a home-made ·22 rifle and shot the gardener after kicking open the back door.
They shot the great dane between the eyes when the dog tried to bar the way to his mistress's bedroom. That is the problem that we have today.
On 26 January 1987, The Sun reported that the owner of a doberman pincher dog is offering £50 to trace a crossbow thug who shot and nearly killed that dog in Dartford, Kent. The Today newspaper of 27 November revealed a lethal armoury that the law does not stop children from buying, including a Barnett Trident crossbow that is accurate up to 50 yards and costs only £48.
Another example of an attack by someone using a crossbow was a pigeon found in a shopping centre with a six-inch steel tipped crossbow bolt through its breast. We must ponder on how it lodged there, bearing in mind the size of the average pigeon. The Times carried an article on 12 March 1985 about a girl who was injured by a crossbow. The article sated:
A girl aged 18 was taken off the critical list in North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary yesterday after being shot in the stomach with a crossbow, in… Stoke on Trent, on Sunday.
It is currently so easy to buy a crossbow. For example, the Fire Dragon catalogue lists some exotic and glamorous titles that have been given to crossbows, including the Panzer II, which costs £92, the Wildcat II and two Thunderbolts, one of which costs £265. The catalogue also lists a Trident that is accurate up to 50 yards. Other models include the Devastator and the Fox Fire. The cheapest one of all is called the Bandit Bow, which apparently is designed for "family fun". That one is described as being safe and is supplied with rubber sucker tipped bolts that can be used to fire at targets that are also supplied. The advertisement reads:
Shoot at your favourite political 'friend' on TV.
It is described as being "remarkably accurate". The Bill is not directed to toy crossbows, but it seems incredible that at one end of the market there is the Thunderbolt, which costs £265, and at the other the Bandit fun bow.
I had intended to bring a Thunderbolt crossbow into the Chamber, and I do not break any confidence by saying that I raised the matter with the Serjeant at Arms. I wanted to show right hon. and hon. Members what one looked like. I received a letter from the Serjeant at Arms telling me that it has always been the position that Members may not enter the Chamber with weapons and that he felt that this practice could not be varied. May I say that I agree with that decision?
There are some crossbows that carry up to six bolts. They are lined up on the bow ready for use. If the user

misses his target the first time he can use further bolts until he hits it. It is frightening. We are talking about bolts that are tungsten-tipped that can kill at 25 yards. The bolts cost about £2 each and they will inflict the most terrible damage on any target living or dead. I am horrified that it is so easy to obtain bolts such as I have in my hand.
The campaign has been building up to a crescendo since early-day motion 638 was tabled last year, which was supported by 162 Members. It called for an unrestricted ban on the sale of crossbows. It is the fact that crossbows in good condition and set up properly would enable any competent rifleman rapidly to acquire the skill to fire on target. I appreciate that there is a difference between a rifle and a crossbow, but the primary difference is that of missile speed, as target-hitting reliability is virtually the same. Both types of missile, however, can travel at 250 ft per second. That shows that we are talking about lethal weapons.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who introduced the Crossbows (Restrictions) Bill during the previous Session. The hon. Gentleman's Bill had all-party support, and it was his early-day motion, which had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), which led to the Government's decision to move on this issue. The hon. Gentleman sought to restrict and control the sale of crossbows and to make their sale to minors a punishable offence. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the current leader of the Social Democratic party, made a major speech on the crossbow's contribution to violence and the ease with which young people can buy and carry weapons which was well reported in the Daily Mail on Wednesday 26 November. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there was a need to end Britain's slide into brutality. The crossbow is one of the weapons which features in the slide and it needs to be done away with as a matter of urgency.
I do not deny that there are other significant and lethal weapons apart from the crossbow, but the crossbow is a weapon of death and of horror. It is a weapon that can be carried easily and taken to football matches, for example. There is a small crossbow on the market that I could have brought into the Chamber easily. I could have carried it on my person and no one would have noticed my possession of it. It is a weapon that is effective up to 50 yards. This type of crossbow is generally lethal at 25 yards, although its range extends beyond that distance. It has been reported that this type of crossbow has been taken to football grounds to be aimed and fired at so-cabled supporters.
We must stop that sort of use of the crossbow. We must protect our young from themselves. National newspapers have been supportive of the crossbow campaign, including the Daily Mail, Today, the Daily Express and The Sun. These newspapers have recognised that crossbows are highly accurate, powerful and deadly weapons. I believe that the crossbow bolt is more dangerous than the 9 mm bullet, yet crossbows are subject to even less legal control than airguns. As I have said, they can be bought freely over the counter at any sports shop.
The critics of the crossbow are urging the Government to introduce legislation to restrict sales. Surely that is right when one reflects on the various incidents to which I have referred. People have been injured and animals have been maimed or killed by crossbow bolts. I want to see a reduction of violence as a matter of urgency.
In a parliamentary answer on 3 December 1986 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that in
consultation with the police and other interested parties I have been considering whether any steps can usefully be taken to prevent the misuse of crossbows.
He stated that crossbows
are …dangerous weapons in the wrong hands, and I do not consider that they are suitable to be in the possession of unsupervised young people.
He went further and said that he proposed
to issue a guidance notice to traders urging them not to sell crossbows to persons under 17."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 634.]
I know that my right hon. Friend's answer was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was considered to be an announcement that would lead to a statutory prohibition on the sale of crossbows to those under 17 years and on their purchase and possession by unsupervised young people. In the absence of an early opportunity for the Government to introduce legislation, my right hon. Friend said that the Government would look favourably on a Bill that was introduced by a Back Bench Member to introduce restrictions on the sale and use of the crossbow. I am that Member.
I have introduced a short Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that it will be an offence to sell a crossbow, or part of it, of the sort to which the Bill is directed, to a person under the age of 17 years. An offence will not be committed, however, if the seller believes the purchaser to be 17 years of age or older and has reasonable grounds for his belief. This is in line with the minimum age of 17 years that is a requirement of section 24(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. I know that that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.
Clause 2 is directed to the sale of crossbows. It makes it an offence for a person under 17 years of age to purchase a crossbow or part of one of the sort to which the Bill is directed. Again, the age restriction is in line with section 22(1) of the 1968 Act.
Clause 3 is directed to the possession of crossbows by persons under the age of 17 years, unless supervised by a person aged 21 years or over. It will be an offence under paragraph (a) for a person under the age of 17 years to have with him a crossbow that is
capable of discharging a missile".
The clause applies to the possession of a complete crossbow, one in kit form or one that has been dismantled. Most importantly, this offence can be committed in any place whether public or private.
Clause 4 sets out powers of search and seizure.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Bill cover the use of a crossbow by someone under the age of 17 years who is unsupervised? The Bill covers purchase and possession, but a youngster may borrow someone else's crossbow and use it temporarily. If the use of crossbows is not envisaged in the Bill, does the hon. Gentleman intend in Committee to introduce a provision to prevent their use by persons under the age of 17 years? Clause 3 does not seem to cover the use of crossbows by young persons.

Mr. Bruinvels: Clause 3 covers that aspect. It does not matter whose crossbow it is. The Bill refers to the possession of crossbows. It creates an offence relating to the possession of crossbows by any person under the age of 17.

Mr. Keith Best: As my hon. Friend knows, I support his Bill. Am I right in thinking that no part of the Bill deals with the manufacture of crossbows by those under the age of 17? They could produce home-made crossbows.

Mr. Bruinvels: Yes. I confirm that no part of the Bill deals with the manufacture of crossbows by people under the age of 17. I imagine that the materials and expertise needed would require someone much older than 17 to make a crossbow. Bearing in mind that I shall speak about the draw power later, there is no possibility that a young person can manufacture such a crossbow.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: If some young person under the age of 17 were to make a crossbow, and if he had it in his possession, he would commit an offence.

Mr. Bruinvels: That is correct. The penalties will be the greatest possible deterrent from making such a weapon.
Clause 4 refers to the powers of search and seizure. Obviously, it is essential to empower a constable to detain and search a person or vehicle in connection with a suspected offence relating to under—age possession of a crossbow or part of a crossbow. The clause goes on to refer to the power to seize and detain a crossbow or part of a crossbow found in a search. As hon. Members will notice, there is a power of entry for a constable to exercise the powers conferred on him by clause 4. Subsection (1) (a) enables a constable, if he suspects with reasonable cause that a person is committing or has committed an offence under clause 3 — that is the unsupervised possession of a crossbow or part of a crossbow—to search that person for the offending item.
Various other provisions under these subsections relate to detaining a person or a vehicle to undertake a search to enable a constable to
seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings for an offence under this Act anything discovered by him in the course of a search under subsection (1) which appears to him to be a crossbow or part of a crossbow.
It is easy to purchase crossbows in kit form, and that is particularly important. Obviously, certain crossbow parts may be hidden around one's body. The police would have difficulties but certainly would be able to find them with a full search. Subsection (4) states:
For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by this section a constable may enter any land other than a dwelling-house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) mentioned crossbows being manufactured by people under the age of 17. Apart from it obviously being an offence to manufacture and possess a crossbow, there is also the draw weight. It would be difficult, without proper professional guidance and the proper materials, to manufacture a crossbow with a draw weight of 1·4 kg or more. The purpose of clause 5 is to exclude the toy crossbow to which I referred a few moments ago. The Bandit Bow for family fun crossbow has a rubber sucker. There is no possibility that that crossbow will do any damage, so it will still be allowed to be sold and used.
As the House knows, I have always been fond of supporting any kind of Home Office toughening-up of the law. We have become much the weaker and we suffer because our laws are not always totally respected and punishments are not always given out to fit the crime. The punishments that I propose in clause 6 will empower the courts to deal with crossbows involved in offences against


these provisions. Subsection (1) provides a maximum penalty, on summary conviction of an offence under clause 1 of the Bill, of six months' imprisonment. Obviously, that refers to the sale of a crossbow to someone under the age of 17. A fine set at level five of the standard scale, which is currently £2,000, is available. I know that these penalties were last looked at in 1984, but I hope that they will be examined again. The bigger the punishment, the greater the deterrent wantonly to sell—if one can prove it, of course—a crossbow to someone under the age of 17. To reassure those hon. Members who wonder about the firearms legislation, I point out that these penalties are totally in line with those provided by the Firearms Act 1968 for someone who sells a firearm to somebody else under the age of 17.
The maximum penalty, on summary conviction of an offence against clauses 2 or 3, is up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is £400. That is a deterrent. Children should not purchase crossbows. They know that they will break the law if they do so, and to them that fine represents a lot of money.
Subsection (3) gives the courts the power, when a person is convicted of any offence under the Bill, to order the forfeiture or disposal of any crossbow or part of a crossbow which forms the basis of the offence. Naturally, that must he done.
Clause 7 relates to corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. Riding in tandem with the Bill will be Order in Council provisions that will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom at, I hope, exactly the same time. I know that hon. Members understand the short title of the Bill. That is the basic premise of the Bill as I see it.
We must continue to bring in any kind of legislation to protect animals. Animals have suffered the most. They are the cheap victims of crossbow vandalism. With various Acts already in situ to help to stamp out wanton attacks on animals, the opportunity exists to tighten up the law to protect them. Juveniles are the main offenders in the misuse of crossbows. They are tempted because crossbows are potentially lethal weapons. It is obvious that the purchase and possession of crossbows should be controlled as a matter of urgency.
At present, 200,000 crossbows are in circulation. The majority are used for sporting purposes. However, only about 3,000 crossbow users belong to clubs. Obviously, many people do not belong to any club. Crossbows are used to shoot at targets on private land, and some are kept at home as wall decorations. Crossbow shooting is developing at such a fast rate that it will not be long before it is an Olympic sport. Many crossbow shooters make their own bolts and bows. That worries me because some bolts are even more lethal than the one that I showed the House.
With 17,000 crossbows being sold each year, there must be some control to ensure that those who use them are capable of using them properly. People under the age of 17 will be able to use crossbows only when they are supervised by an adult. That adult will have a great responsibility. Under clause 3, no child under the age of 17 may use a crossbow unless he is under the supervision of a 21-year-old adult or someone older. It is important that we look after our young people and do not tempt them to buy crossbows.
Another worry is that there has been a growth in crossbow misuse in the past year. Crossbows were not misused so much in the 1970s, as far as we can tell from

the offences known to the police. Recently there have been 54 cases of criminal damage and 25 cases of attacks on animals. Something has to be done to stop the horrific and brutal injuries which, unfortunately, are becoming regular occurrences.
Action to prevent young people from having these crossbows must be welcome, and we must ensure that they are no longer tempted to buy these weapons. I understand that guidance notices are already available and are acting as a warning to all traders. It is important that tradesmen and mail order companies keep an eye on the problem. If it can be shown that someone under the age of 17 has a crossbow, the trader is very much at fault. Therefore, I want the measure to be as strong as possible. I also want to ensure that the temptation to buy is removed. Unless there are controls over the sale of crossbows, persons arid property are at risk. People have laughed and said that the crossbow is not a worry, but it is a lethal, vicious and dangerous weapon.
Sir Robin Day in "Question Time" seemed to feel that crossbows were an outsize bow and arrow of the Robin Hood days, but Robin Hood was responsible in the use of his bow. These weapons are not necessarily bows of bamboo cane and a length of string. Crossbows are a dangerous and powerful weapon. The draw weight of the crossbows shows the serious damage that they can do. It is easy to penetrate substantially into timber, brick arid human and animal flesh. Therefore, I bring my Bill to the House in a serious attempt to solve this problem.
The RSPCA's statistics are a roll of shame of the abuse that has occurred. Police statistics tell part of the story. It is up to us to ensure that the misuse is calmed and quelled as quickly as possible. The crossbow offences show that this is not always a nice sport. I know that the National Field Crossbow Federation, and the British Crossbow Society, which has 50 clubs, will co-operate. I know that the match crossbow shooting and field crossbow shooting will continue. I am not trying to stop the sport, but I am trying to ensure that crossbows are properly used arid looked after and that the countryside and our animals are protected.
We will no doubt have to discuss other Acts in Committee, and there will be necessary amendments arid discussions on the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. There will need to be general monitoring of the use of offensive weapons in public places. The Bill will enable people to show criminal intent, with resulting conviction. The short range of some of these crossbows must not be seen as an easy option. They are still lethal weapons and should be handled with care. They are barrelled weapons, and the speed with which some of them emit the bolt is a matter of great concern not just to hon. Members but to those outside the House.
I have received many letters of support from those who are concerned and I shall take the time of the House to highlight some of them. The National Farmers Union has said that farm livestock is vulnerable to crossbow misuse. It wants to see positive action to combat the growing menace of this silent but lethal weapon, and it welcomes the Bill. It acknowledges the lethal capacity of crossbows and points out that bolts have been known to pierce concrete walls. It gives a worrying statistic about crossbows. In 1965, 1,000 were sold, while in 1985 17,000 were sold. There are now 250,000 in circulation arid something must be done.
The RSPB also shares my concern. It welcomes the Bill and says that the damage that has been done to wildlife is shattering. The St. Andrews Animal Fund has been in touch with me and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It says that it has great concern about the Bill.
Crossbows are here to stay, but they must remain under proper controls. My Bill is a small contribution to ensuring that crossbow misuse is curtailed. It will take a while to get the Bill through the House, but the fact that crossbows are so lethal and cause misery and injury to so many animals and humans shows that the time is running out for those who dare to misuse them. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the House because it will do something to protect defenceless animals and help humans. Crossbow shooting is a countryside sport. I am attacking not countryside sports but those who attack innocent animals and humans. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), first, on his success in coming so high in the ballot for private Members Bills, and, secondly, on choosing the subject of crossbows for his Bill. Although the Bill does not go as far as I and many others would like, it goes a long way towards dealing with the incidents that have brought this subject so vividly to my attention. It deals with the restriction on the sale of crossbows to children.
In August 1985 a constituent of mine, Mr. Roger Docherty, brought into my office in Jarrow a crossbow that had been bought by his 15-year-old brother Adrian in a hobby shop in South Shields. On seeing his brother with the crossbow, Mr. Docherty took it from him. He took it into the garden to try it out, and from 15 yards the arrow penetrated a piece of wood to the depth of I in, enough to kill a person. This lethal weapon had been sold across the counter in a hobby shop to a 15-year-old boy, with no questions asked. Anybody who had seen him would have easily recognised his age.
The weapon was manufactured by Barnett International of Wolverhampton, and it claimed on the package to be the most powerful crossbow manufactured in the world. There was a foot adjustment with it to help those who were not strong enough to do whatever they call cocking a crossbow to fire. On 5 September 1985 I wrote to the Home Secretary drawing his attention to this alarming and dangerous practice. In that letter I pointed out that this crossbow had been sold across the counter to a young boy. At that time the American film "Rambo", referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, East, was on release in all the cinemas and was being widely advertised. I had an idea that the sales campaign at Barnett International coincided with the showing of the film.
I received a reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, on 30 September 1985, in which he said:
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953, for example, makes it an offence to possess any offensive weapon, including a bow or crossbow without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. … Our view, which is one shared by the Association of Chief Police Officers, is that bows and crossbows do not present the same danger to the public safety as firearms and that, given the extensive restrictions there already are on their use, we would not be justified in imposing on the police the substantial extra workload that further controls … would entail.

My constituent was so concerned that he contacted the Sunday Sun newspaper, which has a circulation in the north. It is part of the Thomson Press, and at that time it was spearheading a campaign to get something done about the sale and misuse of crossbows. That campaign had been prompted by the many incidents that had taken place in the north.
After the article appeared in the Sunday Sun I received letters from all over the country, as Mr. Docherty had said in the article that he had contacted me and that I had written to the Home Secretary. The letters that I received described incidents that had occurred with the misuse of crossbows. One letter was from S. M. Wakelin of Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire. He described how two policemen had been attacked as they got out of their patrol car outside Bracknell police station. He said:
One of the two bolts they dodged was fired with such force that it penetrated the station's concrete wall.
The letter continued:
A bolt was fired at an airliner. It happened at Leeds airport when a two-engined Dan Air plane with 44 passengers was about 100 ft off the ground. The bolt penetrated a wing and ripped part of the fuselage.
I admit that there is no evidence to show that what that person said was true, but it is typical of the letters that I received after the article appeared in the Sunday Sun.
During Home Office Question Time on 20 February 1986 I raised the matter again with the Home Secretary, I asked:
Does the Secretary of State recall that I wrote to him last September about a 15-year-old constituent of mine who went into a shop and bought a lethal crossbow? His hon. Friend the Minister of State answered the letter saying that it was an important matter that they would keep under review. Has anything been done about that incident? Do the Government intend to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of crossbows or at least to extend licensing, bearing in mind recent incidents?
The Secretary of State replied:
We are considering the matter carefully and urgently to see whether anything sensible can be done." — [Official Report. 20 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 467.]
In March 1986 early-day motion 638 was tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), and that was signed by many right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Leicester, East also referred to that.
I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and gave him copies of my correspondence and also the minutes of a committee meeting of the Northumbria police authority which had discussed the use and misuse of crossbows as a result of the many incidents that were occurring in the Northumbria police area. My right hon. Friend wrote to the Home Secretary, and on 16 April he received a reply which stated:
Particular concern has been expressed recently about the misuse of crossbows and I accept that we should look again to see if anything further can sensibly be done to try to prevent these weapons falling into the wrong hands. My officials will therefore be consulting the police, the crossbow manufacturers and the crossbow sporting interests to see how we can best go forward.
During April the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wrote to the Home Office giving information on crossbow injuries and deaths to animals. It pointed out that in the past five years there had been 100 deaths and injuries to animals by the use of crossbows.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned various newspapers which took up a campaign on crossbows because of the serious incidents that were


occurring all over the country. On 6 May 1986 the Daily Mirror had a full-page article on crossbows. It spoke of the menace of weekend Rambos and went on to describe the various kinds of crossbows that could easily be purchased by mail order or over the counter at hobby shops and so on. The article continued:
Already, crossbows are taking a terrible toll. They can kill a man at 100 yards and arc being used by thugs to inflict shocking injury and death on people, domestic animals and wildlife … Police admit that under the present law they are powerless to curb private combat training and the spread of legally-held weapons.

Mr. Best: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a person takes a crossbow into a public place he is already covered by legislation on the possession of an offensive weapon? It is an offensive weapon per se and not one that has been adapted for the purpose.

Mr. Dixon: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and that has been drawn to my attention in Home Office correspondence.
The Bill will prohibit the sale of crossbows to youngsters under the age of 17. One of the dangers is that when youngsters buy these crossbows unbeknown to their parents, they will use them unbeknown to their parents, and thus they will not be subject to supervision or control. Although the Bill does not go as far as I should like, it is a step forward.
On 11 June 1986 I introduced a ten-minute Bill asking for the introduction of a licence and various other things for crossbows, and received a tremendous amount of support. I do not lay any blame on the Home Office for delay, as I understand that this is a difficult subject to approach and progress must be made step by step.
The first step taken by the hon. Member for Leicester, East will go some way towards solving those problems. I believe that during discussions certain amendments may be introduced. Indeed, that point was made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who asked why the prohibition on the sale of crossbows was restricted to those under 17, rather than to those under 18. This morning I received a briefing from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which made the same point:
The Association, therefore, welcomes the provisions of the Bill in principle, but believes that the age limit should be raised to eighteen years.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East gave the reason for the proposed age limit.
I support the Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has chosen this subject and I hope that the House will give unanimous support to the Bill's Second Reading so that it can go to Committee. We would therefore be one step further towards dealing with a problem that affects every part of the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East on introducing the Bill.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is a fortunate hon. Member. He is fortunate in drawing lucky in the ballot, and fortunate for being parliamentary representative for Leicester, but Leicester is fortunate to have my hon. Friend as its Member of Parliament. In the time that he has been in the House my hon. Friend has shown himself to be a diligent and humane Member. The Bill is evidence of that, and I am proud to be one of its

sponsors. My hon. Friend explained the Bill in a clear and agreeable manner and I hope that the House will respond by giving it a speedy passage to another place so that it can be brought on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend should even have contemplated bringing a crossbow anywhere near the Chamber. Surely he knows that he can sling his arbalest from the red tape on his peg in the cloakroom. But, more seriously, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has just illustrated, a crossbow is a weapon capable of the most deadly purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East is a member of the National Synod of the Reformed Church of England and he quoted some ancient Anglican associations with venery arid the crossbow. But the crossbow goes back centuries before the Reformation. The history of warfare and armament is the history of one fearful dominant weapon being answered and downed by another.
In the Crusades the arbalest proved superior to the bows used by the mounted Saracen archers. But in 1139, the second Lateran council, held under Pope Innocent II and attended by about 1,000 prelates, besides various suspensions and excommunications, passed canons on simony, incontinence and clerical attire, and another canon forbade breaking the peace of God and contests dangerous to life. I mention in passing that the peace of God was not so very peaceful. The idea was to have peace in Christendom for better war against Islam.
This universal council also considered and condemned the crossbow, which was then widely used, notably by the Genoese, Pisans and Venetians. In England, its use was forbidden by King Henry VII. The motive, as my hon. Friend has said, was not so much humanitarian as to encourage the craft of the longbow, which had given England her triumphs at Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt.
By the 17th century the crossbow was dying out. However, as today, in the calendar of my hon. Friend's communion, is the feast of King Charles the Martyr, perhaps I can mention that it was used in the Great Rebellion. Speaking of regicide, one of the kings whose names are much associated with the building of Westminster Hall was assassinated by means of a crossbow.
In later times the crossbow has been revived, partly for sport, but partly, alas, for vicious cruel crime. My hon. Friend is no spoilsport, nor are any of his supporters. The sportsmen who use the crossbow today are eager to put out of business, and, if appropriate, into gaol, the poachers and robbers and those who inflict death or injury by means of a crossbow upon birds and animals.
My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—no, he is not learned, but he will be one day—is on the Treasury Bench arid he looks benign today, and I believe that the Home Office is benign towards the measure. I have been reminded by a column in the Police Review of 9 January that that was not always the case. In 1979 a Labour Home Secretary, in a written answer, told me that he had no evidence that legislation on crossbows would be justified. The Home Office is making a little progress under the Conservative stewardship. I hope that the presence of my hon. Friend means that we shall have full Government support for the speedy passage of this necessary Bill.
My last point relates to clause 7 and to Northern Ireland. It is not clear to me why the Bill could not simply


have been applied to Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will refer to that if he obtains the leave of the House to intervene again. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will also refer to this point. It may be that the present state of the law in Northern Ireland requires the treatment proposed in clause 7. Otherwise, surely it would have been easy for us to provide that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. If we are to have a separate order, some hon. Members will be required to sit, probably late at night, in order to pass it. Is that necessary? It is simply part of the bureaucracy's general obsession with the separate statute book of Northern Ireland and its perverse opposition to the full integration of the Province into the United Kingdom.
But that said, I do not wish to end on a sour note. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I wish him all success — indeed, I wish the country all success—in the speedy passage of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Hancock: I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvel) on bringing the Bill before the House and giving us the opportunity of taking what has been already described as that much needed first step forward.
I, like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), am proud to be a sponsor of the Bill. It will be an enormous benefit to Britain and will undoubtedly set the scene for further legislation in coming years to tighten even further the controls over what can only be described as a very dangerous weapon indeed.
I have been amazed, to say the least, at some of the bizarre documents that I have been sent urging me to rebut the Bill. The research project funded by the Crossbow Archery Development Association went into detail about what the crossbow can and cannot do. The hon. Member for Leicester, East dispelled many of the myths that it has tried to create in defence of something with which it is obviously extremely proud to be associated. But some of its suggestions about the abuse of crossbows and the effectiveness or otherwise of the weapon are dispelled in other reports, not least from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. To suggest, as the association does, that the weapon is not often used to abuse animals and is not a lethal weapon in the sense that it loses its strength quickly is a bizarre contradiction of what the association's members would use the weapon for and of what it would be seen to be used as.

Mr. Dixon: I think that every hon. Member will have received a copy of that research. Will the hon. Gentleman also point out that that research was funded by manufacturers of crossbows?

Mr. Hancock: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point out. Those hon. Members who have received that research should look carefully at who financed it. It deserves to be put in the dustbin when compared with the real evidence that has been put forward by bodies that have been affected by the use of these weapons.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned the National Farmers Union. It has sent me a copy of the

letter that it sent to him. Its examples of the use of the weapon on livestock are legion. The many examples should draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that something must be done.
I do not believe for one minute that all the incidents are caused by youngsters under the age of 17 with crossbows. Many, if not the vast majority, were caused by irresponsible, vicious, nasty people who find it funny or nice to injure, maim or kill an animal. The hideousness of that act needs to be exposed. It would be folly for any hon. Member to suggest that that was the province only of the young—far from it. It appeals to all cross-sections of the population and we should be wary of it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) has sent me a copy of a catalogue that he used in making a speech. After reading that catalogue, I got hold of another that described many weapons, including the close-killing commando battle knife, "which every home should have". I do not know why everybody should have a close-killing commando battle knife, but the suggestion is that we are not complete in our homeliness unless we have one. The catalogue went on to say that, at long last, we have the ultimate killing weapon and described the high-powered deadly crossbow, as if we had all been waiting with bated breath for that ultimate killing weapon to be on the market. Sadly, that weapon is readily available in high streets in virtually every city and town.
Sadly, many of the dealers who stock that long-awaited killing weapon are only to willing to sell it to youngsters, many of whom not only look young but are under the age of 17. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) described a serious incident in his constituency that involved youngsters. We should be wary of the hard-sell tactics of those who deal in such weapons, which are depicted in words that would encourage many people to believe that they should have one, because they possess some special power that would give them an ability to kill, maim or inflict injuries on animals. We should be wary of such publicity, and I hope that the Minister will advise us that his Department will seek to take action against the way in which those weapons are advertised, the descriptions that are given of them so as to make them appeal to a certain section of the community that seems to delight in such material.
The weapons are undoubtedly powerful and extremely dangerous. Many of them, with steel and tungsten tips, are capable of shattering a house brick at some considerable distance. There have been instances of crossbows that have embedded themselves in concrete walls and ripped through metal. As we have heard from the statistics, crossbows are used in crimes against people as well as against animals. In various statements that have been circulated to hon. Members, the police have expressed their concern about the way in which those weapons have been allowed to proliferate. About 250,000 such weapons are available at the moment and that warrants real control and ultimate licensing.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East made great play of the fact that there are clubs of responsible people who are interested in crossbows. That is true, but there are also many grossly irresponsible people who possess those weapons and who will not only use them for poaching and other activities, but will allow young people to use them. We must be ever vigilant in trying to safeguard against that mentality.
I welcome the proposals, but I hope that the House will regard them as only the first step. Other weapons are illustrated in gaily coloured books and catalogues depicting the martial arts, for example, the throwing stars that have become so popular at football matches. I know that from my experience when standing on the terraces at Fratton park at Portsmouth. I have seen those things being thrown around and the hideous injuries that can be caused by them. The mace, with its ball and chain, is also something that people are told they should own, if one reads those catalogues. The sub-aqua diver's high powered speargun is as lethal in many instances as a crossbow, but it is readily available across the counters of sporting shops up and down the country.
Therefore, the Bill must be welcomed, but it should be regarded as being only the first of many steps that we must take. The House should have the courage to say, "Enough is enough," and should have enough backbone to bring in the legislation and resist the glossy booklets and members of the sporting lobby, who tell us that those weapons are essential if they are continue to perform their activities. I do not believe that any weapon can reasonably be used against any animal. However, I accept, as do the hon. Member for Leicester, East and many of the other sponsors of the Bill, that many in the sporting fraternity see the crossbow as a legitimate field weapon. I do not share that belief.
I support the Bill and am proud to be a sponsor of it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East on having the courage to present the Bill. I am sure that he was inundated with offers of help and support for bringing other Bills to the House. I believe that he chose the right Bill. He showed his personal courage in resisting the temptation to present a more glamorous Bill to the House. I welcome the opportunity to support his Bill, but I urge the House to remember that this is the first step and that we need to take many more before we shall be able to rid ourselves of the hideous results that such weapons can bring to society.

Mr. David Evennett: I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I am especially pleased to be a sponsor of a Bill that has received all-party support, because that is something which, regrettably, is all too rare these days.
I share the concern of many of my constituents about the increasing violence in our society and the increasing incidence of avoidable accidents involving young people. I realise, as we all do, that the media give wide coverage to the more extreme or spectacular incidents, so it is all too easy to believe that death or injury lurks around every corner. As a parent of two young boys, I am obviously concerned about the increase of violence in our society and naturally want to see improvements that will protect our future citizens. We must keep things in perspective but, in some cases, death and injury do lurk around the corner. For that reason, some sections of the community are afraid to venture out because of their fear of the criminal element. I am not suggesting for one moment that the use of crossbows for criminal purposes is a major problem, because it is not, but any injury that is avoidable is regrettable and I believe that the House has a duty to

legislate to minimise or eliminate the risk of injury wherever possible. Therefore., I welcome the Bill, which sets out to deal with a minor but real problem in a society that is complex and ever changing. There is undoubtedly a real gap in the law if it allows the unsupervised use of crossbows by young people.
I must admit to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East that before the problem of the misuse of crossbows by young people was brought to my attention by constituents I had never thought of, fired or even held a crossbow. Indeed, I still have not held or fired one, but at least I am now better informed about the different types, sizes and styles of crossbows and their usage. I am also well aware of their power and of the fact that so many of those potential weapons are in circulation.
I supported the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South when he said that we have been bombarded with literature on this subject. When the matter was first raised with me, I, too, began to think in terms of our history and of the time when the longbow was the standard weapon of our armd forces and the crossbow was considered foreign and somewhat sinister. We all remember our childhood legends and our history—1066 and all that, the battle of Hastings and the Middle Ages of which we have already heard much today. In England, we have always been keener on Robin Hood than on William Tell. Those of us who grew up in the 1950s were addicted to the television series about Robin Hood which showed the longbow and which was very good. However, we are not here to discuss romantic tales of the longbow or the even more romantic tales of apples perched on heads, although I have visited Altdorf in Switzerland and the statue of William Tell and his son is most impressive. Today we are concernd with the abuse of powerful weapons which can inflict grievous injury, damage property, maim wildlife, kill livestock and injure human beings.
I have been especially concerned at the number of offences involving crossbows that have surfaced in the press, and I have raised the issue with the Home Office. Numerically, the offences are few and might not appear to be much of a problem, but not only were one quarter of them sadistic attacks on animals, causing the most sickening and brutal injuries, but it is felt that many offences could have been prevented if crossbows had been subject to the controls proposed in the Bill. Constituents who have raised the issue with me have expressed amazement at the availability of such weapons to young people and the fact that they are subject to no controls at present, and I must confess to sharing their amazement. We are talking not about toys but about silently operated and potentially lethal weapons.
As we have heard today, crossbows are available quite easily across shop counters and sometimes by mail order. No person in his right mind would suggest that firearms should be so freely available. The Firearms Act 1968 ensures that they are not by imposing stringent controls on their sale. Of course, firearms are generally more lethal and regrettably are used in more serious criminal acts, but crossbows — some of which must be as lethal as a handgun—are available without any restriction, even to minors. That cannot be right. I would not advocate the introduction of a licensing system of the type that applies to firearms at this stage as the present situation does not warrant such a complex method of controlling crossbows. This situation is quite different. I support a restriction on the sale of crossbows to young people and a restriction on


the purchase and possession of crossbows by young people. Those are controls that the Bill would provide admirably.
The Bill is both simple and straightforward. In an age in which so much of our legislation becomes more complex, it is refreshing to see a Bill that is easily comprehensible to ordinary people and to Members of the House who, like myself, are not lawyers. It makes a pleasant change to read a Bill and understand it the first time. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East is a lawyer, but I congratulate him on presenting a short and understandable Bill. It proves that lawyers can speak in intelligible English when they want, need or have to, and those of us who are not lawyers are grateful.
As I said, the criminal misuse of crossbows is not a major problem and in consequence this is not a major change in the law. The Bill would make it illegal for anyone to sell a crossbow to a person who is under 17. Similarly, it would be an offence for a person under 17 to buy a crossbow. In addition, any person under 17 who had a crossbow in his possession would be committing an offence unless he was supervised by a person over 21. I am confident and entirely convinced that the changes will have popular support and that the provisions will eliminate a great deal of potential danger and harm. In Committee, we might like to table one or two amendments, but I am sure that the Bill will find considerable favour in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. The Bill comes not before time and the controls that it introduces are long overdue.
My only reservation about the Bill is one of which I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East is aware. It is that there is no provision for the imposition of custodial sentences for the purchase and possession offences that the Bill would create. As a non-lawyer, that appears to me to be an oversight—

Mr. Best: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive an intervention by a lawyer. Youth custody is not available for anybody under 17 years of age in any event.

Mr. Evennett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. It seems that there is a weakness in the Bill if we have limited punishment for youngsters under 17 who purchase potentially lethal weapons and are convicted more than once. We might elaborate on that in Committee. As a non-lawyer, I shall take advice on the matter. It is regrettable that there is not a stronger punishment for constant offenders.
I do not wish to dwell too long on this small Bill as I know that other Members want to debate other measures today, but I warmly commend the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East on his good fortune in the ballot and on his good sense in introducing the measure, which is necessary and welcome. I hope very much that it will have an easy passage in Committee, but that some amendments will be made, which we can discuss. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book later this year and achieve the aim that we wish.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and to speak briefly in this Second Reading debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on introducing the Bill, as well as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the 10 others who supported him, which shows the depth of all-party support for the measure. I also pay tribute to many organisations that have brought the abuse of those weapons to our attention, and not least to the Cats magazine and Mr. Brian Doyle, its editor, for the campaign in which it has been engaged over the years.
I should like to make three specific points. First, there is a need to rationalise the age limits in relation to such legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East reminded me, and thus was acting with impeccable parliamentary propriety, that he was linking the age limit of 17 to present legislation for other offences in this area. However, there are far too many age limits — there is legislation for under 14-year-olds, 14 to 17-year-olds, 17 to 21-year-olds and over 21-year-olds. The age limits should be simplifed. I share the view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. This point was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I should like the age limit to be 18 for the purchase and possession of crossbows.
My second point has been highlighted by other hon. Members. The problem of abuse is not confined to crossbows, but arises from many other lethal weapons. I understand that we cannot do it under this legislation, but in time we must tackle the increasing abuse and misuse of air weapons, air rifles, air guns and so on. I hope that the Government will give attention to that.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary can comment on my third point. However stringent the regulations and laws are for these lethal weapons, they should be tightened and simplified. There is a continuing need also for a publicity campaign to remind parents and children of their responsibilities and duties. Whatever the legislation is, we must continually mount campaigns to raise awareness about misuse.
I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book. Again, I congratulate all the hon. Members who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East in introducing the measure.

Mr. Keith Best: I join other hon. Members in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on introducing this piece of legislation. He knows that I shall support it on Second Reading. He and I have known each other for a long time; we knew each other before we came to the House. We have not always agreed on everything, but this is something on which we can agree. I also reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) about other matters that could properly be brought within such legislation and I am particularly thinking of martial arts to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I appreciate the constraints upon my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. He wants to bring forward legislation which will reach the statute book and he can be assured that the Bill will reach the statute book. To extend the Bill


too widely might jeopardise that. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concentrated exclusively on crossbows for that reason.
The House will have to consider martial arts equipment in due course, not withstanding the attitude—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Austin Rover (Redundancies)

Mr. Terry Davis: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the redundancies announced today by Austin Rover.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The call for voluntary redundancies and early retirement beng conveyed to individual Austin Rover staff this morning is a matter for the company. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on that. Austin Rover must be free to determine employment levels in line with market conditions and the need to be competitive.

Mr. Davis: Will the Minister admit that this announcement confirms our fears that, contrary to the impression that the Secretary of State tried to give in answer to questions on Wednesday, Mr. Graham Day and the Government intend to settle for an Austin Rover share of only 15 or 16 per cent. of the British market and a total production of 450,000 cars a year, instead of trying to get sales back up to more than 20 per cent. of the market and production back to 650,000 a year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the redundancies mean that one in 10 of Austin Rover staff will lose their jobs as a direct result of this defeatist attitude towards sales adopted by Mr. Day and the Government? How many other redundancies have yet to be announced by Austin Rover or elsewhere in the Rover Group? Will the Minister now publish the corporate plan for the Rover Group, immediately and in full, and allow us to see the true scale of the butchery proposed by Mr. Day with the Government's blessing?

Mr. Pattie: The forecasts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned do not in any way follow from the comments that my right hon. Friend made in the House earlier this week. I deny that there is any defeatist attitude in my Department, in the Government generally or on the part of Mr. Graham Day. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the corporate plan is being studied at the moment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is clearly essential that Austin Rover is brought into profitable and successful production and increasses its share of the market. Is it not impossible to make a judgment about the redundancies until we know the content of the corporate plan, which is in the Minister's hands? Do the redundancies form part of the corporate plan? Have they been given explicit approval by the Government as part of the corporate plan, or are they independent of the proposals in the plan? When will we know the answer to that question?

Mr. Pattie: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will become apparent when the corporate plan is published.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister seriously claiming that the Government have no views at all about the scale of these redundancies and that they have no responsibility for that or the corporate plan?

Mr. Pattie: I am merely saying what I said in my original answer. It is for the company to decide its manning levels in order to maintain its competitive position.

Mr. Don Dixon: Does the Minister accept that the sooner he sacks Mr. Graham Day the better that will


be for the motor industry? Bearing in mind Mr. Day's track record with the shipbuilding industry, he will be disastrous for the motor industry.

Mr. Pattie: When the corporate plan is published and the hon. Gentleman reads it, I do not think he will believe that his comment was a fair one. Mr. Day's approach to these matters has been to try to get Austin Rover on to a fully competitive basis. That is very important.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not clear that when Austin Rover begins to emulate the success of Jaguar it will start to take on more people, not fewer?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. and learned Friend has reminded the House that the manning levels of any commercial enterprise depend absolutely on its ability to be competitive and to sell its products.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister not agree that the cuts in production levels at Austin Rover will have a spin—off effect on companies such as Triplex which make the glass for Rover cars? Does he agree that support for the component industry is equally important? Do the Government not have some responsibility in that matter also?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is right, in so far as the component industries' fortunes are inextricably linked with the fortunes of any motor car assembler. The fundamental point remains the ability of the motor car company to sell its products. The more competitive it is, the more it sells and the more the component industry will benefit.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am alarmed by the announcement that has been made, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the redundancies will probably come from early retirements and voluntary redundancies? Can he tell us whether any estimates have been made—this will affect some of my constituents—of how soon the increased sales in America of the Rover Sterling, and the 800 range in Europe and other models, will restore productivity to 650,000 cars a year? The redundancies were based on a lowering of that figure.

Mr. Pattie: With regard to voluntary redundancies, today's letter states:
It is hoped to achieve the staff reductions through early retirement and voluntary redundancy as far as possible.
The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is that the success of the Sterling motor car, which appears to be achieving encouraging penetration of the American market, will be a crucial element in the fortunes of Austin Rover.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith), and bearing in mind that the corporate plan is on the Minister's desk, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the redundancies form part of the corporate plan, or has he not taken the trouble to read the plan yet?

Mr. Pattie: The corporate plan is being studied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As my right hon. Friend has said on several occasions, a summary of the plan will be published in due course and a statement will doubtless be made then.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that competition is the very essence of this matter and that the increased production and marketing of the company's excellent new model will ensure its future, lead to increased sales and perhaps even increased employment in due course? Is he also aware that those in the car component industry in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) are very keen to see Austin Rover succeed so that they can expand their businesses?

Mr. Pattie: That must be right. As my hon. Friend has said, the fortunes of the component industry are inextricably bound up with the fortunes of the motor industry, and an increasingly successful and competitive Austin Rover will help the component industry.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not a bit thick for the Government to send Ministers to the Dispatch Box to claim that unemployment has nothing to do with the Government? Another 1,000 people have been thrown on to the scrap heap as a result of the Government's policy. If there is some minuscule drop in the unemployment figures one Thursday morning, all the Ministers are trotted out on the BBC, bullied as they are, to tell the world that the Government have done a wonderful job. If the unemployment figures fall the Government get the praise, but if the figures rise the Government claim that it has nothing to do with them. The Government gave £200 million to Nissan two years ago to build cars in Britain. Does the Minister accept that that has something to do with what is happening at Austin Rover now?

Mr. Pattie: Should I deduce from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he would not be in favour of Government subventions on payments to Austin Rover?

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that during my tour of Austin Rover a few months ago I was told that a special effort was to be made to boost the sales of the Austin Rover 800 series in America in February, perhaps with the assistance of a royal personage? Is that likely to happen? Are great things expected, as the company hopes?

Mr. Pattie: The company has high hopes for the Sterling range in the United States, and I gather that a major agreement has been signed with a leading chain of motor car concessionaires. That should help to ensure the success of the car.

Mr. Tony Banks: Do the Government seriously intend to wash their hands of the problems of the British motor car industry? Is the Minister not alarmed at the increasing penetration of motor vehicle imports? Is he not equally alarmed at the fact that, before long, a country such as South Korea will be manufacturing more motor vehicles than will Britain? It is not as though it is a dying industry. People are still buying cars. Why do the Government not do more to encourage the production of British vehicles?

Mr. Pattie: Of course, people ars still buying cars. The question which the hon. Gentleman and others must consider is why they are not buying British cars in sufficiently large numbers. The reason why they have not done so in the past is that they have not been satisfied with the quality, design, production or after-sales service. Only


when those are improved — steps of this sort will improve competitiveness — will the British motor car industry get the success that it requires.

Mr. Tony Favell: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does my right hon. Frend agree that the problems with the motor industry are not in the private sector? There is no problem with Vauxhall or Ford; they are racing ahead. The problem is with Austin Rover, which is still in the public sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for far too long, the management of Austin Rover has dozed on the feather bed of Government support, safe in the knowledge that if there is any risk to management in will come the west midland light horse?

Mr. Pattie: Jaguar is an example of a company that has moved into the private sector with conspicuous success, once its management was able to take control and not have to rely on Government subvention or interference.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Are engineers included among the redundancies? If so, will the Minister explain how designs can be improved if engineers are being sacked?

Mr. Pattie: The description of which I am aware is that they are white-collar staff. The company must decide those from whom it will seek voluntary retirement or redundancy.

Director-General of the BBC

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked about what was then described as the resignation of the Director-General of the BBC'. This morning's press and last night's television strongly suggest that the Director-General did not resign but was dismissed. The fact that he relinquished his duties immediately gives weight to that suggestion. That creates a very different position for the House.
With your assistance, Mr. Speaker, can we obtain a statement on this matter today from the Home Secretary in the light of his duties in relation to the appointment of the chairman of the BBC'? There is serious anxiety that the departure of Mr. Alasdair Milne may have had something to do with the intolerable and unacceptable pressures placed on the BBC by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The fact that the Prime Minister denied that it had anything to do with her naturally leads to suspicion that it was something to do with her.
This is a matter of grave public importance, affecting the major voice of communication in Britain, whose independence and integrity and whose protection from insidious Government pressure are of concern to the overwhelming majority of the population. That being so, Mr. Speaker, will you assist us in obtaining a statement from the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. One thing that I can say is that it is not a matter for me. I am not responsible for any statements that may be made. Nevertheless, the point has been made and the Leader of the House is present. I am sure that he will have noted it.

Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private Members' day and it is unfair to take up time with points of order. I shall take the points of order if they are legitimate, but I must say that this matter has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for a Minister from the Home Office to attend the House later today to answer questions on a subject that is exceedingly important for the whole House? The independence of the BBC must be a high priority of all parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker: It would be possible, but, again, it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will probably have read, in your capacity as the Chair of this place, there is just the hint that some hon. Members will take part in a filibuster to try to block the second item on the agenda—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These points of order are taking up Back Benchers' time. That is what I am concerned about.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet. Sit down. My hon. Friend has got a bit of a job, but he had better be careful.
If such a filibuster is to take place, Mr. Speaker, you should look closely at the suggestion that it would make more sense to get a Minister to come here and occupy that time. One Minister who could come here is the one responsible for broadcasting. If you cannot find him, Mr. Speaker, you could find the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. My hon. Friends could then ask why Alasdair Milne has been bullied out of his job at the BBC. That would make more sense to the people outside—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private Members' day. If a statement was to be made, it would be made at 2.30.

Mr. Fisher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House is present, would it be possible for him to explain the Government's position on the departure of the Director-General of the BBC? This matter goes to the root of your protection of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary expression in our democracy. It would be appropriate for the Leader of the House to say how the Government will explain the events of the past 24 hours and by whom the Director-General is to be replaced.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me at all.

"The Secret Society" (Parliamentary Privilege)

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I promise you that it is a genuine one. As you know, the Opposition have supported the Government's efforts to suppress possible security breaches in relation to the BBC film. You will recollect our debate the other day, but the matter seems to be descending into a farce in which the privileges of the House may be prejudiced.
I see from today's newpapers that the Government do not intend to seek an injunction against the showing of this film in Wales. We now have the anomalous position whereby, although we cannot see the film in the House, our constituents can see it outside the House. We could go to Wales to see it. It seems that the only place in Britain where the film cannot be shown is in the House of Commons.
Does that not impinge upon our privileges? In this matter, we seem to be underprivileged. In view of the constructive role that you tried to play in last week's proceedings, Mr. Speaker, can you intervene now to ensure that hon. Members' rights are preserved, in the light of what has emerged since our debate?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must repeat that it is unfair to make points of order on a private Members' day. I have to take them, but the House should bear that in mind.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter greatly affects our privileges—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not mean the right hon. Gentleman. My remarks were directed at those Members behind him who are seeking to continue the points of order.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did not your ruling the other day state that the injunction would apply until the Committee of Privileges had reported and the House had decided, unless the injunction was subsequently withdrawn? Therefore, would it not be appropriate for the Government to apply the injunction to the Principality, or to withdraw it from the House? May we have a statement to that effect at 2.30 this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is entirely correct; the matter is now in the hands of the House. We debated this exhaustively on Tuesday, in an admirable and excellent debate. The matter is now with the Committee of Privileges. What the hon. Gentleman says is correct. My direction remains until the House has debated the matter, or until the injunction is withdrawn.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it goes beyond that. You have said that the matter is in the hands of the House, but there is surely an important element of timing here. The Government have kicked for touch. The matter has gone to the Committee of Privileges, it will be discussed there and a substantial time might elapse. It then has to come back to the House for a decision. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, may we appeal to you, as the guardian of the


privileges of the House, to recognise the absurdity of the position? When I travel to Wales, as I will today, I shall he able to see the film in a place which shares the common laws of England. The Conservative party claims to be the unionist party, yet it is prepared to countenance a wholly separate position in Wales and to deny to hon. Members, surely on a wholly absurd basis, what it is prepared to allow in Cardiff, Swansea and elsewhere.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to participate in the debate on crossbows. I am one of the sponsors of the Bill and do not want to waste the time of the House, but a serious problem arises. I assume that the reason why the injunction does not extend to Wales is that it is particular to the film that Mr. Duncan Campbell has. This seems to imply that as your ruling is linked to that particular injunction, if hon. Members were able to secure the copy of the film that is in Wales it would not be covered by your ruling and we could see it in this House. Your ruling applies specifically to an injunction in respect of one copy of one film.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I in no way challenge it. You made the point that the matter was in the hands of the House, but that is not solely the case, because it is also in the hands of the Government as a result of the ruling that you gave the other evening. As you will appreciate, it would take a considerable time for the House to reverse your decision of the other evening, whereas an administrative decision could be taken instantly by the other party in control of the matter, namely, the Government. One of the duties of the Leader of the House is to protect the rights of Back Benchers, and it would be appropriate if, before we finished our business today, the Leader of the House could come to the House and make a statement about what the Government intend to do to remedy the anomalous situation that we are in.

Mr. Speaker: The House took a decision on Tuesday. As far as I am concerned, that is where the matter rests. If the injunction is removed, that is a completly different matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member, but he should bear in mind that he is prejudicing the rights of other Back Benchers.

Mr. Skinner: This time last week there was a furore about this film. Because of it, one man at the BBC has almost certainly got the sack. You, Mr. Speaker, had to come to the House to ensure that motions were debated on Tuesday about the matter. It is well known that you were not exceedingly happy about the prospect of getting into the middle of the argument. You made it clear that that was a problem for you and one that you did not relish.
All the so-called drama of last week occupied reams and reams of newspaper column inches, it was reported on television day after day and it worried you all over the weekend. Now we hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that this great and wonderful Government have come up with an idea that excludes Wales. Why can we not have a Minister from Wales to come and tell us that he will organise, by order of the Welsh tourist board, trips to Wales to see the film? It holds out endless possibilities. This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and if I were in your place I would be inclined to tell the Committee of Privileges to wind it up as quickly as it can.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should take a trip to Wales but I shall now call a Welsh Member, Mr. Keith Best.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that too many important points have now been raised for us to leave the matter without hearing something from the Leader of the House. Essentially, we are faced with an important shift of Government policy which has not been explained. That which the Government thought was extremely important for them to achieve only a week ago they have now publicly abandoned. There ought now to be a statement from the most appropriate Government Minister and it should be made at 2.30. I hope that the Leader of the House will make some response to this plea.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will have heard that comment.

Crossbows Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Best: I was in the middle of my speech before the statement and the points of order. During the points of order the word filibuster was mentioned. I should make it clear to the House that I hope I shall not be accused of filibustering because there is an important Bill following this one. I want to see that properly debated, not least, as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) the sponsor of the Bill, because of the total absence of any consideration of the treatment of alcohol offenders or those with habitual difficulties with alcohol or alcohol abuse. These matters should be debated.
In the earlier part of my speech I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East on his Bill and I also said that I understood why he had not encompassed within it other matters. I mentioned martial arts equipment as something which would have to be addressed at some stage by the House. In fairness, I should say that I have a copy of a "Guidance to traders" leaflet issued by the Martial Arts Commission in consultation with the Government. It says clearly and in bold lettering:
Do not supply martial arts equipment — across the counter or by mail order—without evidence of membership of a bona fide martial arts club. Do not sell to people under 18.
There is also a clear exposition of the law. The leaflet says:
Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
Martial arts equipment gives rise to the same difficulties as crossbows, because there seems to be no definitive statement as to whether pieces of martial arts equipment are offensive weapons per se or can be so adapted, or whether they can be antiques or something of that nature.
From the case of Crown v Jura in 1954 it appears that an airgun is not regarded under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 as an offensive weapon per se. That was an interesting case in which an air rifle at a shooting gallery was being used by the defendant. He lost his temper—perhaps he was not hitting anything—and fired at and hit a woman who was with him. It was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that he had a reasonable excuse for possession of the air rifle and that the unlawful use of it did not bring him within the ambit of the section of the Act.
I mentioned martial arts equipment and an airgun. The same problem obtains with a crossbow, because one does not know whether a crossbow is covered by the 1953 legislation. I think that the Government are supporting this Bill and when the Minister speaks he may well say that the advice he is receiving is that a crossbow may not be regarded as an offensive weapon.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman and I practise at the Bar and know of the array of problems that arise about definition under the 1953 Act. Does he accept that there could be difficulties about antique and non—antique crossbows in actual cases?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He is right. I address myself to the question whether a crossbow, whether an antique capable

of being fired, or a modern version, is an offensive weapon per se. One could argue about whether it is adapted but that does not seem to come witin section 1 of the 1953 Act.
When my hon. Friend the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box he should say a few words on that issue because it would be of interest to the House. He might like to bear in mind statements made by the Home Office in the past. For example, a letter of 29 May 1981 was sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Dover (Mr. Rees). It stated:
The misuse of a crossbow could include offences against the person of varying degrees of gravity, under the legislation for the protection of animals and birds and under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which makes it an offence to possess any offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The letter goes on to say:
To seek to introduce a control and licensing system specifically for crossbows would involve police in a good deal of additional work.
One accepts that, and it is probably one of the reasons, although I do not know, why my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East had not decided to go down that route for licensing.
In that letter the Home Office is clearly considering that crossbows come within section 1 of the 1953 Act.

Mr. Anderson: Could.

Mr. Best: Yes, or could. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I have another letter dated 4 December 1984 sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). I am not breaking any confidences because these letters have
been produced by the home affairs section research division in the Library and are widely available to any hon. Member who wishes to see them. The letter said:
The information which you request in the Questions on the number of fatalities and injuries caused to persons and to animals by the use of crossbows is not collected centrally.
I shall deal with that later. The letter goes on;
while I recognise the concern that exists about crossbows, they and other weapons not subject to specific controls are already covered, so far as misuse of them is concerned, by existing general provisions of the law. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953, for example, makes it an offence to possess any offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Legislation also protects wildlife, and there are local provisions, such as those contained in the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847, as amended, and local byelaws which prohibit the wanton discharge of missiles in any street or public place. Depending on the circumstances, a misuse of a crossbow could also be an offence against the person and, depending on the circumstances, could attract very severe penalties.
The letter goes on to deal with another important aspect. It states:
Given the extensive restrictions which already limit the use of crossbows I do not consider that we would be justified in imposing on the police a substantial extra workload that further controls, such as a licensing system, would create. As I have emphasised, they are by no means the only potentially dangerous weapons not subject to specific controls, and our present approach is to rely upon general provisions. We have no plans at present for further legislation on crossbows but we shall continue to keep the matter under review.
In those letters there is the articulation of the difficulty for the police of having a licensing system. What is interesting, as was helpfully pointed out by the sedentary intervention, about which I make no complaint, from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is that the first letter suggested that crossbows could come within the 1953 legislation but there seems no doubt in the letter of 4


December 1984 that the Home Office view then was that crossbows certainly do come within section 1 of the 1953 legislation.
In view of the time, I do not want to develop that further. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
This matter has attracted a wide degree of support and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will have redoubled his efforts knowing that he has so much support from so many quarters. It is interesting to note that the Association of District Councils welcomes the Bill and asks for it to be given a speedy Second Reading. I hope that I will not be regarded as being responsible for delaying that more than necessary. The National Farmers Union has also supported the Bill. Although it is difficult for the NFU to assess the nature of abuse of crossbows in respect of livestock, one does know that there have been severe cases which have damaged not only the farmer's livelihood, because of damage to livestock, but, perhaps more importantly, have caused intense pain and suffering to the animals subjected to such cruel attacks. In 1985 approximately 16,000 crossbows were sold, I am told by the NFU. That is corroborated in other documents that I have.
I have no intention of going through the history of the crossbow. Some hon. Members who are more opposed to the measure that will come after this, the Licensing (Amendment) Bill, might want me to go back to ancient times and deal in detail with the history of the crossbow. I do not propose to do that because it would be an abuse of the House. However, it is important to remember that there have been demands for some form of restriction on crossbows from a wide variety of organisations such as the Magistrates' Association, the NFU, the Police Federation and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is a difficulty in establishing the facts about abuse. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will concur with that.
The largest crossbow manufacturer, Barnett International in Wolverhampton, has commissioned independent research into the weapon. It is an ancient weapon, as has already been mentioned. The English were firmly wedded to the longbow. From my own reading of the period of history that fascinated me as a schoolboy, I remember Poitiers and Crécy and the superiority of the longbow over the crossbow, which was used by the French. The rapidity of fire of the longbow made it much more effective against the heavy French cavalry. The problem of reloading the crossbow meant that the rate of fire was restricted. It seems that it was also regarded as a weapon for the aristocracy or the upper classes, whereas the longbow was not. There were statutes that made the possession of longbows and arrows mandatory and formal practice was required — [Interruption.] I hear a complaint from the Treasury Bench that I am dealing with history. I shall pass on.

Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up a problem relating to Barnett International, the largest manufacturer of crossbows, and the research project that it commissioned. Is that the research report by Colin Greenwood?

Mr. Best: Yes. I can identify that report.
I want to put the Bill in perspective. It is important to assess the true nature of the abuse but that does not in any

way diminish my support for the Bill's Second Reading. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East would accept that the itemisation of abuse is limited. There is difficulty in trying to obtain information on abuse, and the nature of abuse is small in comparison with other weapons.
I am happy to support the Bill because I believe that my hon. Friend is in advance of this country because his legislation is in anticipation of a greater abuse of crossbows. He said that there is an increasing use of crossbows and an increasing interest in them. That is likely to continue and this legislation may well become more relevant as the years progress.
In 1985 the total production of crossbows was about 110,000. The total sales or crossbows in the United Kingdom domestic market in that year was 16,000 to 17,000. It is true that some 700 or 800 people are employed in the production of crossbows and that is not a great number. However, there is an estimate that 200,000 to 250,000 bows are presently in the hands of the public. That seems to accord with the views of the manufacturers. There are several clubs dedicated to crossbow shooting but they are much smaller than archery and rifle clubs, some of which have crossbow shooting members. It is reckoned that competitive crossbow shooters operating in the club environment do not exceed 3,000 in number.
Some crossbows are employed in unusual roles. The Central Electricity Generating Board and the Forestry Commission use them for launching light lines so that the heavier ones can be taken across inaccessible spots or to the top of pylons. There is some use of crossbows for launching tranquiliser darts to immobilise animals. The evidence suggests, however, that crossbow owners do not fire them frequently. Abuse is, perhaps, an isolated event, although it is motivated by a great deal of malice and a desire to do much damage. The Bill is therefore welcome because it tightens up the law as a crossbow may or may not be an offensive weapon as defined by existing legislation.
It is difficult for small children to abuse a crossbow as it is a powerful weapon and hard for them to cock, hold, aim or fire. The crossbow was superseded as a military weapon by firearms. It is worth comparing the power of firearms and crossbows. A hunting crossbow, which is a very powerful weapon, produces a velocity of 200 ft per second. The muzzle energy of the two most powerful types of crossbow is 32 and 46 ft lbs. The average crossbow will provide muzzle energy of between 20 and 30 ft lbs. A 9 mm cartridge fired from a pistol, which has a lower muzzle velocity than a rifle, gives about 350 ft lbs and the ·44 magnum pistol gives 1,500 ft lbs. The 7·62 NATO service rifle gives a muzzle energy of 7,600 ft lbs, and the ordinary 12-bore shot gun generates 1,500 ft lbs.
Crossbows are powerful, but it is clear that they are not nearly as powerful as firearms. A crossbow bolt is capable of causing death or serious injury, as are a host of other instruments which are readily available. The crossbow is a low-energy short-range weapon which is extremely difficult to use accurately. Within its restricted capabilities, it can be used humanely for hunting deer-sized animals. It is effective only in the hands of a skilled user at the shortest ranges. It is ludicrous to compare it in terms of power and effectiveness with modern firearms.
It is difficult to establish the nature of abuse. The Home Office statistical branch is unable to assist, as is the Office


of Population Censuses and Surveys. Detailed examination for other years could have been undertaken but that would have been time-consuming and costly. The Department of the Environment wildlife division, which was responsible for the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prohibits the use of crossbows against wild animals, has no statistics on crossbow abuse against wild animals. It seems that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, one is prohibited from using a crossbow against a wild animal but, because a wild animal does not come within the scope of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, one is perfectly entitled to batter a hedgehog or wild cat to death with one's foot — there are unfortunately, reported cases of that—because such animals are neither domestic nor captive. I shall not digress any further, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that matter carefully.
The Department of Health and Social Security's statistical research division, the Health and Safety Executive, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the Department responsible for prices and consumer protection cannot offer much information about crossbow abuse. It appears, however, that the level of abuse is low.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has produced the most evidence of abuse. The chief veterinary officer said that the society holds no statistics or case records centrally, but he went to considerable trouble to contact every inspector in the country concerning incidents during 1980 and 1985. It emerges that there were three cases each in 1980 and 1985. I should mention the letter which was sent to the F8 department of the Home Office by the RSPCA which itemises those incidents. To save time, I shall not go through the letter, but it provides more information than can be got elsewhere.
During a 15-year period there were only 41 incidents involving the use of crossbows. That is an average of less than three a year. There was one case of homicide, four cases of robberies, four involving assault against the police, four involving other assaults, one fatal accident, three suicides—it is sad, but I am not sure how one commits suicide with a crossbow—one of burglary, six involving domestic assault, two of damage to property and three of other accidents or injuries. There were two incidents against sheep, two against cats, one against a dog and seven against swans, geese and ducks.
The only homicide occurred in March 1976 when two brothers had an altercation about a bequest and one shot the other with a crossbow. There were 24,890 robberies in 1981 in England and Wales, but crossbows were used in connection with robbery only four times in the 15-year period that I have mentioned. Other assaults involving crossbows have occurred in domestic or quasi-domestic circumstances.
I do not want to delay the House because I want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate on the Licensing (Amendment) Bill. I have a sheaf of notes but I shall put them on one side because I do not wish to detain the House any longer save to say that I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East on having brought forward this measure., It will be a lasting and perhaps increasingly useful piece of legislation

Mr. Clive Soley: It is just as well that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) sat down when he did, because the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has just brought in a crossbow bolt. The timing of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon was opportune.
There is growing concern about the use and abuse of crossbows and other weapons. The Bill is limited in its scope, but it is welcome despite those limitations.
The report by Mr. Greenwood has already been mentioned. In that report he says that there is little evidence of abuse and that what abuse there is can be dealt with under existing legislation. That may be correct up to a point, but the problem that must be addressed is much wider than just crossbows. It is the growth and availability of a wide range of weapons, paramilitary courses and other phenomena that have become associated with some of the frustrations, anxieties and stress in our society. That is what makes the availability of weapons, whether they are crossbows, guns, knives or anything else, so profoundly dangerous.
In more stable societies or more stable times a considerable number of weapons may be available without any great increase in abuse. In Switzerland there is a wide availability of firearms, but a relatively low level of crime involving them because Switzerland at present does not suffer from the extreme problems of the collapse of the community, especially in inner city areas, that we have here. Wherever there is a rapid and dramatic collapse of a community there is likely to be an increase in crime. That is why there have been problems in Britain and in other Western countries in recent times, and why the problem has become much worse in the 1980s. Such crimes as robbery have rocketed and will continue to increase until the Government begin to do something to help rebuild the shattered and battered communities in our midst.
I shall refer to a couple of points in the Bill. I take it that, if the Bill goes into Committee, clause 4 will be subject to the constraints exercised by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is assumed but it should be borne in mind.
I shall make a few points about the punishment mentioned in clause 6. One thing that troubles me— I have raised this before on other Bills—is the way in which we always mention fines and imprisonment when talking about weapons of this sort, particularly in connection with young people. Let us remember that the bulk of the Bill is concerned with young people under 17 although it also affects adults who sell them the weapons. We do not wish increasingly to lock up young people or criminalise them early on in their career. Britain already sends into custody more young people than any other comparable country in the Western world. That does them no good at all. If anything, it gets them into the universities of crime that much earlier in life.
It always worries and to some extent puzzles me as to why we pass law after law which impose fines and imprisonment, especially for young people, when we should at least mention compensation and making recompense to society. Far more good could come out of a sentence in which a young person especially was ordered to do some community work—especially if it related to animals that perhaps that child had injured or killed in especially brutal circumstances. That could be far more useful to the health and development of a young person's


normal personality than simply locking him up with other people who have a host of social. economic and emotional problems. That really does not help us.
It would be a good idea to direct the ideas of magistrates towards compensation and recompense by putting in Bills of this nature the provision that that sort of compensation was available. I urge the hon. Member for Leicester, East to do that, although I know that he is fond of locking up people and hanging them and has even offered to do it on occasions. It puzzles me how he can then be against crossbows because it seems to me that at the root of the motives of improper use of crossbows and taking a person's life by the judicial measure of hanging is the same problem as having at heart a feeling of anger, vengeance and fear and those sort of emotions which are so destructive of the normal human personality. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take on board the need to bring compensation or recompense to the mind of the courts by including such provisions in one of the clauses. This would be especially appropriate for young people. Perhaps clause 6 would be the appropriate vehicle.
In clause 6(3) the courts are given the power to order forfeiture or disposal of any crossbow or part of it. That is profoundly important and I agree with the provision. For many young people the confiscation of a weapon is more important than any other penalty. It is more important than criminalising them by convicting them in a court of law. A far more effective course is to take away the weapon.
Adults have an undesirable tendency to forget what they did during their own childhood. We must recognise that there are few young males who grow up without using catapults. Unfortunately, many young males, and females to a lesser extent, use airguns. If we forget what we did in our adolescence, we tend to become punitive and respond inappropriately to the problems that young people face. I can remember using catapults and airguns and having a catapult called Big Bertha. It was mounted on a truck and it had elastic a quarter of an inch wide. It could hurl quite a large rock a long distance. It was a dangerous weapon by any standards. In the gang warfare of the area in which I was brought up, catapults were used as a natural extension of fighting for one's territory. I received a secondary modern education in north-east London and it is the north-east London survival instinct that enables me to cope with public-school educated Conservative Members, who probably had more sophisticated weapons such as crossbows and airguns. I could not afford that type of weapon.
In all seriousness, we forget that young males especially will have an interest in weapons and playing with them. I could easily have acquired criminal convictions for some of the things that I did with airguns and catapults as a youngster. There is no sign that criminalising youngsters by convicting them in the courts helps them to mature in a normal healthy adult life. We must concentrate more on confiscation, limitation of damage and prevention at the point of sale. These will be far more effective measures than locking up people, especially the young, and increasing their emotional and social problems.
There is some anxiety about legislating for certain weapons only when society is concerned rightly about the growing availability of weapons generally and associated paramilitary courses. Of the 9,500 notifiable offences involving firearms, 6,300 were associated with airguns. It is clear that airguns are a major part of the problem. As

I have said, at one stage in my life I had an airgun. I much enjoyed using it but, fortunately, I did not go in for shooting animals and birds. I would not have enjoyed that and I would not have done it. However, I can remember the temptation to do so from time to time. A young person finds it exciting to shoot at a moving target and I can understand that it is easy for young people to drift into that form of shooting. Whether we are talking about catapults, airguns or any other type of weapon, we must seek to discourage use except in fairly constrained circumstances.
I am not sure whether there is any justification for selling crossbows or any other type of weapon by mail order. I am dubious, and am becoming increasingly worried, about the widespread advertising of paramilitary courses, certain types of knives, catapults, guns and so on. An increasing number of magazines that tend to hang on to the survivalist culture are available in major bookshops and stores and at major stations and other such places. I have already drawn the attention of the House and the media to them. They advertise how to get hold of Bren guns, Rambo knives and crossbows. They mention how to turn one's neighbourhood watch group into a vigilante group—all sorts of things of that ilk.
They also give great descriptions of courses conducted in the countryside to learn survivalism. I shall not discourage people from trying to live in the countryside, as long as they respect the countryside when they do it. It is a healthy and desirable pursuit, but when it is advertised, as it often is in certain magazines, as being about the breakdown of law and order in society, there is a more dangerous result. Often, Right-wing organisations are involved. They adopt a paramilitary practice. They mention weapons such as crossbows, knives and so on in the course of their survivalism.
Since the late 1970s, the use of these weapons has increased considerably, and robbery, as I have said, has rocketed. I suggest to the Minister—indeed, the Labour party has suggested this to the Minister's predecessor and the Home Secretary for some time — that the Home Office should have within it a much more high-powered Committee to review the availability and type of weapons, paramilitary courses and the magazines that advertise them. We need a proper licensing system.
Not long ago, the Minister's predecessor tried to clamp down on the availability of guns by increasing the licence fee. That is not the right way in which to control the availability of weapons. It hits at the low income, responsible user and does not begin to touch the high income, irresponsible user. It is unfair.
The Socialist point of view is that freedom is affected by the amount of income that one has available to spend. If we try to clamp down on the availability of any commodity in society by putting up its price, we shall do nothing to help people on low incomes who might wish legitimately to indulge in the sports that the hon. Member for Leicester, East described. I do not wish to clamp down on legitimate users of guns, crossbows or anything else. These weapons can be of legitimate sporting use.
We wish to deal with the matter not on the basis of cost, but by a proper licensing system, and the only way to achieve that is by setting up a committee in the Home Office that can inform the debate. Such a committee could make reports to a Select Committee of the House so that


we may have the type of debate that led to the earlier legislation that covered these subjects, rather than try to do so in this piecemeal way.
There is a case for licensing every lethal weapon of the type described today. I realise that this could not apply to knives. We should have a licensing system based not on cost. I recognise that cost would need to cover, or at least as near as possible cover, the cost of administration. There is a case for having a licensing system not dissimilar to that for cars. The licence would follow the weapon. In that way, we not only will keep track of the weapon if it is stolen or misused, but can identify it. The problem with shotguns is that we cannot identify how the people who misuse them get hold of them in the first place. Many are available through importations, some are stolen and, of course, some are exchanged by a legal owner selling them to an illegal owner, that is, someone who has a previous conviction.
There is a case for examining all these matters, but I do not think that we should legislate in this way. It would not be appropriate for the Home Office Minister to go too far down this road today, but when he considers the Bill in Committee — I hope it will be examined carefully in Committee—I urge him to examine the suggestions that I have made, particularly on the compensation and forfeiture argument and in the longer term, but, I accept, not within the context of the Bill. I urge the Minister to consider setting up the type of committee that the Labour party has put forward as its policy for the past couple of years since we have had brought to our attention the acute and, in our view, justifiable public concern about the availability of some appalling weapons, not least knives some of which, incidentally, are produced in some obscene forms. One can put these knives into an ordinary belt and pull them out, and there are flick knives that look like pens, all of which are on sale.
We cannot deal with this problem simply on the basis of an offensive weapons charge, but must use a licensing system for their sale. A bread knife may be as lethal as a Rambo knife, but we do not want to encourage the macho culture that fosters the idea that law and order has broken down and we have to take the law into our hands and avenge ourselves. I am critical of the Government's law and order record — it is atrocious by any standards. However, I do not want to encourage that undesirable and dangerous idea, which was put by some people on a television programme in which I was involved the other day.
The Home Office has much to work on. Within its limitations, the Bill is to be encouraged but the Home Office needs to go much further. I recommend some of the proposals that I have put to it this morning.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), partly on his success in the ballot, partly on choosing this Bill, and partly on the clear and elegant way in which he introduced it. My hon. Friend reviewed carefully the legislation that deals with firearms. He stressed the point that at the moment we have a comprehensive statutory framework regulating the control, possession and sale of firearms. However, he

rightly pointed out that we have no legislation that regulates the sale and purchase of crossbows. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). Undoubtedly that is a lacuna.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, East and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) gave us an interesting account of the history and development of the crossbow. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East also gave us a revealing description of the nature of the weapons with which we are dealing. He was right to stress the wide range of weapons. At the bottom end of the range are the toy crossbows, to which the Bill is not directed. At the upper end there is a different category of weapons, those that are powerful, accurate, lethal and capable of inflicting substantial injuries or even death.
When, in 1986, concern about the misuse of these weapons was expressed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), the Home Office decided to carry out a review on the use and misuse of these weapons. To obtain a balanced view of what it was we were dealing with, we consulted a number of interested bodies, including the police, the RSPCA, those engaged in the sport and the manufacturers. A number of interesting conclusions and facts became available to us, and I shall mention some of them.
First, we learnt that there are about 200 crossbows in circulation. We also found that only a small proportion of crossbow users belong to any of the organised clubs, and that a majority of users, as far as one can judge, shoot at targets or on private land, or keep their crossbows on the walls at home for decoration. The sport of crossbow shooting is developing and, as a number of hon. Members have said, is enjoyed by a large number of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East is correct in saying that it may become an Olympic sport soon.
In 1985, commercial sales of crossbows within the United Kingdom were around 17,000 and the industry —exclusive of the retail industry—employs about 700 people.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise to the Minister for intervening, but earlier on did he say that there were only 200 crossbows in circulation in the country?

Mr. Hogg: No, 200,000. If I did not say that number, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because 200,000 was the number that I intended to say.
It is difficult to form a certain view of the extent of the misuse of crossbows, not least because there are no central police records on the matter. A special survey by the police took place between April 1985 and March 1986. It revealed that about 115 incidents involving crossbows had been reported to them. A breakdown of the cases revealed that 54 were cases of criminal damage and 25 were offences against animals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East has given us information about a number of incidents regarding animals—from information derived from the RSPCA—and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat those statistics. Suffice to say that the information proves that it is an increasing problem, and those who use such weapons for that purpose should be condemned.
One must take a broad view of this matter, and so far as we can judge from the statistics the misuse of crossbows


is at a fairly low level. Hon. Members have referred to existing legislation, and a number of statutes deal with the misuse of crossbows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) raised the important question of whether crossbows are offensive weapons. His experience in those matters is perhaps even greater than mine, but we both approach the subject in an undogmatic manner. My advice is that a crossbow is not an offensive weapon per se. That is what I believe to be the provision in legislation, but if a person is carrying such a weapon with an offensive intent he commits an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, whether or not it is an offensive weapon per se.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) made a helpful speech in which he identified the lacuna in the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East also drew attention to this. There is no control over the sale of crossbows to, and their purchase by, young persons. We are directing our efforts to that omission.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a guidance note to traders urging them not to sell to persons under the age of 17. My hon. Friends will recall that at the same time he stated his intention of supporting any legislation that might be brought before the House designed to stop the sale of such weapons to young persons. Therefore, we strongly welcome the Bill that has been ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford drew attention to the clarity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East had introduced the Bill, and we are grateful for that clarity and for the clarity with which he has expressed his intentions.
Offences are created under clauses 1 and 2 in respect of the sale of crossbows to and the purchase of crossbows by persons under the age of 17. That is the core of the Bill. It will be an offence to sell a crossbow to a person under the age of 17, and it will be an offence for such a person to purchase one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) tackled us about the uniformity of age. He suggested that we should fix the level at 18. There is no magic way in which one can determine whether 17 or 18 is the right age. Seventeen brings the Bill more into line with the firearms legislation, and we have approached it on that basis, but I realise that as between 17 and 18 it is a foolish man who tries to be too dogmatic.
Clause I could be improved by extending the prohibition to include letting on hire and clause 2 could be improved by extending the prohibition to the concept of hiring. But that is a Committee point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will take that into consideration. Clause 3 makes it an offence for any person under the age of 17 to possess a crossbow anywhere unless he is supervised by someone over the age of 21, and I think that that proposal will have the support of the House.
The Bill provides the police with powers of search, and we have considered the clauses that deal with penalties. I hope the House will feel that we have got the balance right. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) when he stresses the great undesirability of imposing on young people some form of custodial sentence. Therefore, I would be sorry to see us trying to impose a custodial sentence in respect of the offence committed under clause 3.
As the House knows, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East has said, we have thought to exempt toy crossbows from the scope of the Bill. and I hope that that will have the approval of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest asked about Northern Ireland. This has been given careful consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He recognises the need to extend the prohibition to Northern Ireland, but he considers that it would be better done by order, rather than directly in the Bill, and he will make the necessary order as soon as possible after the Bill has been enacted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked about publicity designed to encourage parents to take a more responsible attitude. I entirely agree with what he said. He knows that we ran two pilot campaigns in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester police force areas just before Christmas, and we shall soon be in the process of evaluating the effect of those.
The hon. Members for Jarrow and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), among others, have put it to us that we should embark upon a more rigorous licensing system. The Government are not persuaded. We have contemplated that possibility, but several important considerations apply. The first is the considerable demand that that would make on police resources. Secondly, the current level of misuse is not such as to justify such a policy. Thirdly, it would be impossible to justify such a policy unless we extended it to, for example, air weapons, and, for a variety of reasons, I would not commend that course of action to the House. Therefore, we do not wish to adopt the licensing proposal put to the House by several hon. Members. Nor do we think that a total ban on sales, whether by mail order or otherwise, would be justified.
The Bill, so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, has the balance about right. No doubt a number of Committee points will be made and will be seriously examined. The Bill meets a genuine public concern about the purchase and possession of crossbows by young people and we think that we have achieved the desire to impose proper restrictions without unduly prohibiting legitimate use. I hope that, on that basis, the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a relatively new Member of the House, may I seek your guidance? We have already had a substantial debate on this legislation, which appears to have received complete support from all hon. Members who have spoken. If a closure motion were to be moved, would you accept it on the ground that other Bills are I o be considered later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman will realise that he is asking a hypothetical question. The Chair will judge whether to allow a closure motion only if such a motion is moved.

Mr. Geraint Howells: After listening to the views of hon. Members from both sides of the House, I believe that enough has been said and that the Bill should be given its Second Reading. However, it would be remiss of me not to say a few words on behalf of the Liberal party and the alliance.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and his colleagues on introducing the Bill. However, like other hon. Members, I believe the Bill does not go far enough.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East on the interesting history lesson that he gave us on the monarchy from the 12th to the 16th centuries. I was interested when he reminded us that one of the reigning monarchs was killed by a crossbow. His speech refreshed my memory, and that of other hon. Members, as to what happened in those bad old days.
Yesterday I contacted members of the Farmers Union of Wales. I know that other hon. Members will have contacted various organisations and institutions. The leaders of the Farmers Union of Wales said that they regard crossbows as one of the most destructive and lethal weapons in the countryside, and I hold a similar view. a crossbow can cause cruel and fatal injuries if it is in the hands of an irresponsible person. In the hands of the criminal element, it is a silent and deadly weapon. As many other hon. Members have said, it is easily obtainable across the counter.
Crossbows should be subject to the same control as shotguns. I was very impressed by the Minister's answer on that issue. Whatever views we hold, we should all remember and impress upon youngsters, and also in our schools, the fact that the crossbow is a weapon, not a tool. Unless we are very careful, many youngsters may abuse the present system.
We live in a caring society. We care for people and animals, but we must also care for the rights of those people who enjoy the sport. However, there is a great deal of concern in the countryside at the moment because the rustling of cattle and sheep is on the increase. Perhaps in years to come thieves will take advantage of the crossbow and kill livestock, because the crossbow works quietly and cannot be heard by people. We have heard instances of such slaughter from hon. Members representing various parts of the country.
I welcome the Bill and hope that it will have its Second Reading, and that amendments will be made to it to make it even more constructive than what has been proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Out of respect for my thirsty hon. Friends, and especially because of the imminence of lunch, I have decided to cut my already short speech in half.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on his admirable measure to curb a lethal weapon. Hon. Members have demonstrated that there is a need for control.
When I heard that "Crossbow" was to be banned, I was somewhat confused. I wondered whether the reference was to the bottle of cider that is the flagship of the fleet launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer). How could one argue whether the drink or the weapon is the more lethal? Or did it refer to that worthy but unread magazine "Crossbow", which is published by the Bow Group on a quarterly basis and which contains articles entitled "Whither the Money

Supply?" by eager and ambitious young Conservatives? I was glad to learn that it was neither of those two great institutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East enjoys an enviably high public reputation. I am not a reader of the Leicester Bugle or the Leicester Mercury, but if his local publicity is anything like his national coverage, without doubt he will increase his majority at the next election.
In the past I have attempted to write about this place and must even plead guilty to having written about some of my colleagues. Having read an interview given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East to a Daily Mail journalist, Lynda Lee Potter, of remarkable frankness and humour, I can conclude only that my hon. Friend is beyond satire. Will he at least give his assurance to the House that he will not leave his body to Battersea Dogs Home? Surely we can do better than that.
There is a growing anxiety among the public about crime, and with good reason. That anxiety is encouraged not just by the figures—an annual increase of between 5 and 7 per cent. each year for the past 30 years—but by the media and the focus that it puts upon crime and, indeed, by us politicians. For example, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has, on behalf of the Labour party, discovered crime. That has been rivalled by the chairman of our own great party who, in his turn, has discovered sin. Is the blame for the rise in crime to be put at the door of the Prime Minister? I should have thought that that was hardly fair. Youth unemployment is a factor, but it is only one among many.
As for sin, no one who has been a member of the Tory party for as long as me could fail to believe in the Fall. Sin has long been with us and is likely, whatever the party manifestos may say this year, to be with us for some time to come. What are the facts? Criminals are mainly young. For males, the peak age is 15 and for girls it is 14. Fortunately, personal injuries do not rate high because 96 per cent. of all offences are against property. The murder rates have increased, but at nothing like the same rate as the crime rate as a whole because murder largely remains a family crime.
Those growing anxieties are exploited by certain organisations for political purposes. An organisation called RECAP has been founded to try to bring back capital punishment. The organiser is a man called Neill Lynn who works in Cambridge. It is a small organisation of approximately one man and a dog. Neill Lynn sought endorsement from the chairman of the Conservative party and, sadly, he got it. Some hon. Members might remember a piece that I wrote about it in The Observer early in January. But what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) did not know�žneither did I—was Mr. Lynn's record as a politician. Last year he was a ward chairman of the Cambridge Conservative Association. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Aha. But before that he was an organiser and active supporter of the British Movement. The British Movement is to the National Front what the National Front is to the Band of Hope. The British Movement is the successor organisation to the National Socialists. I make that point only because Mr. Lynn is to make a speech in my constituency tonight in which he will make two demands: first, that I should no


longer represent the constituency as the Conservative Member because I am an abolitionist, and, secondly, that capital punishmnt should he brought back.
It is only fair that the electors in Aldershot should know who is leading that crusade. Once they know Mr. Lynn's political record, he will be run out of town.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Cambridge Conservative Association still accept Mr. Lynn as an office holder in spite of what has been said about him?

Mr. Critchley: I have no idea.

Mr. Tony Banks: First of all, may I apologise to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) for missing the start of his speech when he introduced the Bill. I was unavoidably detained by crowds of people waiting for the pubs to open.
I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Leicester, East asked me to sponsor the Bill. I hesitated at first because I wanted to see what punishments he was going to write into the Bill. Clearly, I would not have supported the Bill if he intended to use it as a way of bringing back capital punishment. Equally, I am sorry that he failed to bring a crossbow to the House to show us what a crossbow looks like.

Mr. Bruinvels: There is one in the police safe.

Mr. Banks: I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was more than ready to shoot an apple off the head of the Member for Leicester, East. When I told him about this, my hon. and learned Friend's hands trembled with excitement at the prospect.
I agreed to sponsor the Bill because I have a constituency interest. There have been a number of cases in the London borough of Newham which have been reported in the local newspapers, the Stratford and Newham Express and the Newham Recorder, of attacks being made upon wildlife in the area using crossbows and other weapons. Conservative Members might not appreciate that on its northern boundary the London borough of Newham is attached to Wanstead flats and merges into Epping forest. There is ample scope for those who are intent on damaging wildlife in the borough because there are ponds and flats where animals can be found to shoot at. Unfortunately, that has happened. There have also been attacks in Newham—on cats and dogs using crossbow bolts. I have received a number of letters complaining about such malpractices and I have attempted in the past to raise the whole matter of the use of crossbows and other weapons with the Home office but I got nowhere. I was therefore delighted to act as a sponsor to this Bill.
Crossbows can be purchased in Newham. Regrettably, there are a number of shops where so-called martial arts devices can also be purchased. I have drawn to the Home Secretary's attention the sale to a child of a device called a Ninja's claw which is, in effect, a spiked knuckleduster. That device was sold to an eight-year-old boy and that shows a high degree of irresponsibility on the part of shopkeepers who are prepared to sell such weapons to young people.
I was sad to hear that the Minister was not prepared to move against the advertising and sale of crossbows by mail order. It will naturally be difficult for anyone selling

through mail order to know the age of the person making the application for purchase. To a certain extent, the Bill will be nonsense if it becomes an Act without an amendment to cover mail order.
Like other hon. Members, I want the Bill to go further in its scope. I hope that amendments will be accepted in Committee that will allow its scope to be extended. Frankly, I am disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to accept that crossbows should be licensed weapons. I understand his points, especially the one about effective policing. For policing such desirable social objectives as the licensing of weapons, the Minister will always get support from the House for additional resources that the Government might be prepared to give to our police forces. We would consider that to be a fitting and proper expansion of public expenditure on the police.
The Minister also said that he would not wish licensing to be extended to airguns. That is regrettable, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have demanded that air weapons be licensed. I have written to the Home Secretary and asked about the possibility of licensing crossbows, but I have been turned down.
The opponents of licensing argue that, in the wrong hands, almost anything can be used as a deadly weapon. I remember one Minister in a debate in the House saying that, if one pushed it to the limit, a fountain pen could be used as an offensive weapon. Of course, that is so. Almost any implement could be used as an offensive weapon—apart from a speech in Parliament, I suppose—if someone was so determined. But we must use some common sense here. Where a weapon so obviously lends itself to abuse in an offensive fashion — that must include crossbows—licensing is necessary. After all, one would hardly walk into a bank and threaten to hold it up by spraying the cashier with ink from a fountain pen if he did not hand over the money. But a crossbow is clearly an offensive weapon that could be used to commit such an offence.
I was worried by the Minister's statement that about 200,000 crossbows are in circulation and that most of them are not in the hands of people who belong to organised clubs. The potential for abuse is enormous. I accept the Minister's statement that the recorded level of abuse is fairly small and not sufficient to worry about, but what concerns me is how many cases of crossbow abuse have not been drawn to the attention of the police and, in turn, to the attention of the Home Office through statistics. Several of the incidents that took place in Newham were not registered by the police as crimes. They can read the local papers, but whether they transfer those incidents to their criminal statistics, I do not know. I suspect that they do not.
The sports lobby for crossbows is highly responsible and is probably as anxious to stamp out abuse as are the hon. Member for Leicester, East and hon. Members on both sides of the House. But if so few crossbow holders are registered in clubs, how can they eliminate the sort of abuse that has worried the House?

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety that the provisions of clause 3, which simply require the supervision of a person who is 21 years of age or under, mean that the Bill depends for its effectiveness merely on such a person being around, not on someone who is a member of a club and a known, responsible crossbow user having charge of the situation?


Bearing in mind the fact that in many recent incidents of football hooliganism there have been gangs of people some of whom have been over 21 and some youngsters, this does not hold out much hope that, unless the Bill is tightened, there will be effective supervision of any crossbow in the hands of someone aged under 17.

Mr. Banks: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in Committee it will be possible to so strengthen the Bill. The best way to cover it would be to license crossbows. That would be the most acceptable method. If the Government have already ruled it out, we shall have some difficulties in Committee in getting it through, but we should at least make an attempt.
One cannot accept as of great value any protestations from the sports lobby which says that it will try to ensure that abuse is eliminated. Clearly, that lobby would not be able to do that. Often when we get into areas like this and want to stop implements that are used within a sport being circulated generally among the population, we are told that we cannot do that because it affects serious sporting interests.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member is stopping consideration of the Licensing (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Banks: If Conservative Members do not even have the courtesy to listen to what I am saying about serious matters raised by my constituents, I can make them sit here for a lot longer while I read a series of briefs that I have been handed on more peripheral matters about crossbows. That could do a great deal of damage to the next piece of legislation. I should be grateful if hon. Members would not provoke me. I have made it clear that I am not attempting to talk out the next Bill.
I was about to finish my speech. I find it rather distressing that at times the sports lobby is wheeled out to say that we should not move against things like crossbows, catapults, airguns or rifles because we would be impairing a sport. The difficulty is that those who seek to abuse those implements are hiding behind respectable sports lobbies. Our eyes must not be blinded by that fact or blind to the camouflage. I appreciate that there is a serious industry involved in the manufacture of crossbows.
I have seen the report commissioned by Barnett International to examine the abuse of crossbows. I reject many of the things in that report, not because I necessarily think that the books have been cooked, but because one must clearly be somewhat suspicious of a piece of so-called research commissioned by a company that has a vested interest in ensuring that no dire action is taken against the users of crossbows.
I do not propose to read them to the House, but I have statistics and a letter from the chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA to the Home Office. That letter makes clear that since 1979 detailed records have been kept about the use of crossbows against domestic and wild animals. Clearly, there is sufficient cause for concern by those of us who want to see this Bill proceed and be strengthened in Committee. I was pleased to be asked to be one of the sponsors and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East on introducing the Bill.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I shall not detain the House for long, because I accept much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has wisely said. I was mildly amused by the suggestions from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West exercised a considerable amount of self-restraint by not quoting the battery of statistics at his disposal. It is a little odd that the hon. and learned Member for Burton, who, I believe, holds the record for detaining the House on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill, using a whole series of statistics and other matters, should criticise my hon. Friend. It is the pot calling the kettle black.
My hon. Friend put forward serious points relevant to his constituency interests. He pointed out what is clearly and readily seen by all hon. Members—that any attempt to regulate an activity of this sort bristles with many difficulties in practice. My hon. Friend spoke about mail order. We have seen in glue sniffing cases the problems of definition about supply. We have seen difficulties about licensing such things as airguns and I suspect that most hon. Members have had brought to them, as I have, people who have suffered injury, and animals which have had the most awful mutilation inflicted on them, by the misuse of airguns. I know of several constituency cases of damage, including a young man who lost his eye as a result of a young teenager wantonly firing an airgun.
The question arises in the case of airguns, as in the case of crossbows: how widespread is the abuse? How far should Parliament proceed along the road of regulation? Is it a question of de minimis? By adopting the Bill, are we going along the road of a nanny society and seeking to regulate that which should not be regulated? From my experience, I believe that this is an area which, in spite of the difficulties, should be properly regulated by the Bill. Therefore, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on his Bill. If it should come to a Division—I am not sure whether anyone seriously seeks to oppose the Bill—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, and I am sure the majority of hon. Members, will follow him into the Lobby.
I should say in passing that when we knew that the hon. Member for Leicester, East had a high place in the private Members' ballot there was considerable speculation, given his wide range of interests, as to what he might choose. It is significant that he has chosen a Bill that is able to command all-party support in the House, and I congratulate him.
I was interested in the legal points made by the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best). I was a little amused when he said, during the course of a rather long speech, that he would delay the House for only a few moments. I felt, Aquinas-like, that it was moments under the aspect of eternity. I promise that I shall not do the same as the hon. Gentleman, because he and I, as Welsh Members, have a common interest. We should leave the House as soon as possible to proceed to Wales to view the film that we cannot see here.
I am a father of three boys, only one of whom is still a teenager, and I would ask the Minister, when looking at crossbows and the array of horrific weapons available, to go to one of the shops, such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, and view


that which is available easily over the counter to young people in our society. I had the experience the Christmas before last of being pestered for a catapult by my young teenage son. I went with him to a shop, which, incidentally, was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I was frightened and appalled at what is available to young people. I confess that eventually I did purchase a catapult, but it was the weakest that I could get away with as a father.
As the Minister looks at the abuses of crossbows and other weapons available to young people, I ask him to ensure that he looks at what is available to young people whose appetite is whetted by films, television and the violence around them. They all want to be little Rambos. Surely it is against the public interest that crossbows, martial arts weapons and catapults, especially powerful catapults, are available to them.
I could, if prompted, go further along the lines already mentioned by other hon. Members. However, essentially my message is simple. This is part of a wider problem and I believe that all hon. Members would urge the Home Secretary to look at what is available to young people, and I urge him to look at those weapons which, even after, as I hope, the Bill becomes law, will still be available to young people.

Mr. Bruinvels: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the debate.
I should like to thank everybody who has taken part, especially the sponsors. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was right. I was presented with much temptation by the ballot. About 59 possible Bills were suggested to me. I did not want any of the others. I strongly believe in this Bill.
I assure people outside and crossbow sportsmen that never will match and field sports be stopped. It is the use and misuse of crossbows that is on the increase. Some 90 cases involving animals were recorded in the first 10 months of 1986. They are lethal weapons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said.
Parental duty must be reinforced. Assuming that the Bill receives a Second Reading, the Committee will consider whether a crossbow can be classified as an offensive weapon. The definition in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it clear that there is a need to show that there is an intent to cause injury. That is the important point.
Animals that have suffered need protection now. The Bill is to be welcomed. Crossbows will continue to be accurate up to at least 50 yds and we must do our best to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Licensing (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, Thai the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should like to thank all of those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill. It is a modest, limited and straightforward Bill. Clause I would enable licensees, if they wished, to apply to the licensing justices for a variation order. The justices would be required to be satisfied that such orders were desirable, taking local factors into account. They could grant orders permitting opening for up to 12 hours between 10.30 am and 11.30 pm, Monday to Saturday.
I expect that some licensees would take up the opportunity and that others would not. There are provisions for appeal and revocation, on application by the police. My hon. Friend the Minister will he especially interested in clause 4(2), which enables the Secretary of State to decide when variation orders are brought in. That relieves any pressure on licensing justices from any initial rush. I assure my hon. Friend that the Association of District Councils does not think that the resource problem cannot be handled.
The House knows that this subject has been discussed on numerous occasions since the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Erroll of Hale recommended, among other things, substantial liberalisation of licensing hours. My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General introduced a Bill in 1975, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) in 1979 and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) more recently.
A debate on the subject was started on 30 November 1984 by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who spoke in the light of his experience as an alcohol counsellor. During that debate, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) spoke, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) who brought his experience and knowledge of the subject to bear.
On 4 February 1986, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the Government's reaction to the 10 years of relaxed licensing requirements in Scotland on the basis of the study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which concluded that there was no evidence that the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 had caused an increase in alcohol consumption and that there were signs that it had led to more leisurely and responsible drinking. Ministers have suggested that this is an appropriate subject for a private Member's Bill.
For the first time, the industry is united behind the Bill. The National Union of Licensed House Managers, which is Trades Union Congress-affiliated, supports the Bill, as does the National Licensed Victuallers Association and the Brewers' Society. The Bill is also supported by the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board, many tourist organisations and the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
I turn to the arguments and make two general points. First, no one really defends the status quo, which is based on historic considerations relating to wartime considerations during the first world war. Since then there have been


immense social and economic changes, especially the massive growth of supermarkets and off-licences in our high streets.
Secondly, no one doubts, least of all the supporters of the Bill, that a minority of people suffer from problems related to alcohol abuse and that it is a serious problem, which can cause damage to those people, to their families, to their employers and work mates and to innocent people travelling on Britain's roads. The arguments for the Bill fall under the headings of freedom of choice, economic effects and health considerations.
I start with health. I quote from a letter that I received from the co-author of two definitive books on the subject, the Reverend G. Thompson-Brake who is the minister of Hadleigh Methodist church in Benfleet, Essex. He states:
For over 25 years I have been a student of the emergence of drinking patterns in Great Britain and society's response to them. On the specific matter of the objects of your Bill, I do not myself believe that the kind of extension of hours which you propose will itself lead to an increase in offences of drunkenness and associated offences . . . 
He continues:
It has always been my view that well conducted public houses provide the best controlled conditions for the sale and consumption of liquor. I do not see how an extension of hours in this sector of the trade will in future lead to increased consumption.
That point has been put to the House in previous debates. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has been a stout defender of the English pub. Much has been made of the experience in Scotland. The definitive analysis of that experience is contained in the Plant and Duffy article in the British Medical Journal of 4 January 1986. It states:
Trends in alcohol related morbidity and mortality in Scotland compared with England and Wales did not show deleterious changes specifically related to 1976, but appeared to be a continuation of the situation that was evident between 1970 and 1976. Conversely, officially recorded rates for drunkenness have declined more in Scotland than they have in England and Wales. This evidence suggests that, in relation to health, the new Scottish licensing arrangements may be viewed neither as a cause of harm nor as a source of benefit. They have, in effect, been neutral.
The article also pointed to the reduction in the Scottish level of public order offences relating to alcohol and the popularity of the new arrangements. The report concluded:
The evidence suggests that neither extreme benefit nor extreme harm would result from future charges.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend mentioned the question of public order offences. I think that he may be interested to know, in support of the case he is making, that the chief constable of Warwickshire told me earlier this week, speaking from the point of view of his professional responsibilities and police operational considerations, that he firmly supports this Bill on the basis that the note that my hon. Friend wishes to introduce would lead to a reduced incidence of drunken driving and other sorts of drunken encounters.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. friend. What he has said confirms what police inspectors and chief superintendents and chief constables have said on numerous occasions.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have advised senior police officers for the past 20 years and I hope to present

evidence to the House that some of them are extremely alarmed at the increase in under-age drinking that is taking place in many parts of the country, including my own.

Mr. Stewart: I entirely accept that the police, like many other people, are concerned about the problems of underage drinking. There is substantial evidence, however, that the police, both in Scotland and England, generally prefer more liberal and flexible licensing hours for some fairly obvious operational reasons. Since 1976, there has been an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of criminal offences recorded in Scotland following liberalisation. Over the same period, there has been an increase of 74 per cent. in England.
At a press conference this week the British Medical Association claimed that the Scottish experience was controversial and highly questionable. That claim was given considerable publicity, but the following day the BMA issued a statement in which it admitted that the Scottish experience was relevant and that the figures relating to Scotland might be in favour of the Bill. There is no restriction on availability of information, but I cannot remember the BMA's secretary mentioning the figures at the press conference. I shall make no allegations, however, because I was not present at the press conference. It would seem, however, that the statistics should have been presented at that time.
There are many factors that bear on the consumption and excessive consumption of alcohol. I am suggesting that there is no evidence that the proposed modest change to our licensing laws in England and Wales will lead to an increase in excessive consumption.
The British Tourist Authority has estimated that the Bill would create about 50,000 extra jobs and the brewers' estimate is an extra 25,000. That estimate is based on the Mori poll that was conducted of Scottish pubs. The poll showed that at least one third of the pubs employed at least one extra member of staff following the change in Scottish licensing laws. Perhaps the estimate of 25,000 jobs is on the low side.
There is no doubt that extra jobs would be created in many enterprises. This week I was visited by representatives of the three gateway airports of Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. They told me that if the Bill were enacted it would enable them to make provision for national and international travellers and that would create 150 new jobs. If the Bill is passed, extra jobs will be created throughout the country.
I consider the economic arguments that are based on choice and tourism to be overwhelming. There are more philosophical arguments about more freedom and there is no evidence that the Bill would aggravate health-related problems. In all probability, it would assist in alleviating them. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have concerned themselves with the serious problems of alcohol abuse over the years will give this modest Bill a Second Reading and join me in Committee. In Committee we may be able to reach a consensus on additional measures to provide health education on the problems that arise from alcohol abuse that we can present jointly to the Government. That seems to be a positive—

Mr. Keith Best: I think that my hon. Friend's last statement will do much to assuage the fears of many of us that there is a lacuna in the Bill, there being no reference to the problems of alcohol abuse. It is clear


that that issue must be addressed, and I am sure that the House will take up my hon. Friend's invitation to use the opportunity that will be provided in Committee to articulate that issue.

Mr. Stewart: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks.
Eventually, common sense prevails in British politics. More flexibility in licensing hours simply is common sense. I urge the House to ensure that common sense prevails today and that the Licensing (Amendment) Bill receives its Second Reading.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The House and all the people of England and Wales have cause to be grateful to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), not only for the way in which he introduced the Bill, but for its terms. No man could be more altruistic than the hon. Gentleman. He has the advantages that he is now trying to confer upon the people of England, Wales and Scotland. His constituents will not gain by his efforts, but mine will. The hon. Gentleman is like a Celtic missionary of old who has come to spread enlightenment and to do something in England that has been needed not only for years but for decades. Shakespeare said that the law is an ass. The licensing laws are a completely inconsistent and hypocritical mule.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) mentioned the increase in drunkenness, particularly among young people. It is farcical that any adult may go into a supermarket from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night and buy bottles of gin, whisky, wine or beer and drink them in the street, at home or on a park bench, but is denied the opportunity to drink in the controlled, supervised environment of a public house. Tourists must think that we are completely mad.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Would it not have been better to include in the Bill provisions to deal with offsales of this kind, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention, and thereby gain much wider support for the measure?

Mr. Oakes: That matter should be covered by a separate Bill.
The hon. Member for Eastwood is trying, in a moderate and modest way, to draw the support of all people within the licensing trade and many outside it. I am the vice-president of the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. Both bodies warmly and strongly support the Bill.
There is a terminal date in the Bill. Newspaper propaganda was spread by those who are opposed to the Bill to try to persuade the public that public houses would be open 24 hours. That is not so under the terms of the Bill. The hon. Member for Eastwood quoted a statement by the British Medical Association which it later corrected. He also mentioned North Carolina in America. I have been to North Carolina. The position there is different. In North Carolina there is no drinking in public houses. Indeed, if one purchases alcoholic liquor, it has to be carried in a brown bag. One cannot publicly display it. Different conditions exist.
Hon. Members have flexibility in the licensing system that operates in the House. Why should we deny that flexibility to members of the public? Indeed, members of

the public will not get anything like the flexibility—even with the Bill—that we enjoy. It is farcicial that public houses must close when their trade may be busiest, when tourists are about and when people need a drink, and must open and remain open during fixed hours when nobody is likely to go into a public house. Publicans must use light, heat, staff and so on at those times.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Eastwood on introducing the Bill. I hope to serve on the Committee when it examines it. I hope that the Committee, as the hon. Gentleman said, is critical in some respects. I sincerely hope that the people of England and Wales and the licensing trade in England and Wales will be given the modest, sensible freedom that the hon. Gentleman's Bill offers.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on introducing the Bill. It required courage, and he has enormous support. I am grateful to him for allowing me to become a sponsor, because I have been involved in this campaign since I came to the House in 1974. One of the reasons is that I represent the brewing centre of Britain, but it is not just the brewers of Burton, but the licensees, the managers, the millions of customers, those who will get work out of the industries related to brewing and the potential employees, who think that the Bill would be a good measure. Possibly millions of people support the Bill, and some evidence of that fact has come in the opinion polls.
It is not just the need for jobs and a successful industry that moves one to support the Bill. In our much more sophisticated and modern times it is important that freedom should be given or restored to people to behave responsibly. That is a fundamental principle of the Conservative party and the Government. There is a need to rid ourselves of outdated restrictions imposed at a time of war on a society in which Governments were then expected to order social behaviour.
We have not, I think, had to wait so long for a Government to support such a Bill because of the fear of ill health resulting from flexible licensing hours. It is no longer acceptable in our modern society, which is much more self-responsible, to argue that the overwhelming majority should have their freedom curtailed because of the abuse of the few. It is more likely that they feared that flexibility would lead to more drunkenness and crime. The police, at an earlier stage, opposed such a change, for that reason, and we backed them. Those who doubted whether that would happen, because it was the closing hour that was causing drunkenness, and that problem will be reduced, if not avoided, by flexible hours, could only, in the years after 1974, look into the crystal ball and say, "We do not accept that mournful diagnosis."
Now, we no longer have to gaze into any crystal balls because we have the evidence of what results from flexibility, after 10 years of that in Scotland. I shall not waste time repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said and what other colleagues will say. However, it is clear that there is no evidence of any deterioration in the moral fibre of the Scots over the past 10 years, and no evidence of any resulting increase in crime.
As a result, senior police officers who earlier had doubts about this have withdrawn their objections and a high


proportion of police, and those who represent them, know this to be so. They have changed to support of a Bill which introduces flexibility and does away with the problem of the closing hour, in which people drink intensively and then go out and smash the place up. Those of us who practise in the criminal courts know that most criminal drunks commit their acts of violence in or immediately after those last moments of drinking-up time at a late hour.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a fair wind. It deals with the matter in a controlled and sensible way. It is not open house, and automatic, that anybody can stay open indefinitely and provide drink endlessly. It introduces a new procedure by which licensing justices can continue to control the drinking hours. There are doubtless all kinds of improvements and some have already been suggested, concerning health, and these can be made in Committee. I hope that the Committee will not last for anything as long as previous stages. On one, I listened for hours to the persuasive but misguided words of my right hon., and dedicated Friend, the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: Because the Bill is sensible, well-researched, job creating, contains a nationally supported principle of freedom, and is long-overdue I support it. I am a sponsor of it and commend it, but that is in no way a criticism of my right hon. and very righteous Friend the Member for Castle Point.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon and learned Friend for giving way. He will recall that my objection to that Bill was that it contained a proposal that children under the age of 14 should be allowed into licensed bars unaccompanied. I managed to persuade the vast majority of the House that that was morally wrong. The House threw that proposal out, and rightly so.

Mr. Lawrence: I am absolutely delighted that the central reason why my right hon. Friend opposed that Bill has been removed from this Bill and that there are now no other grounds on which it may be opposed by my right hon. Friend.

Sir Bernard Braine: Oh yes there are!

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgshire, North-East): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on introducing the Bill, and I especially welcome the moderation of the Bill, the basic task of which is to rationalise and simplify.
I think it is fair to say that if one knows where to go it is already possible to do everything that is being sought in the Bill. One can start drinking at Smithfield Market at 6 o'clock in the morning, and if one finds a market extension one can carry on drinking through the afternoon. If one's desires to drink in a public place are frustrated, one can board a train with a bar and go to Brighton and back; one can book in as a resident in a hotel and drink in the residents' lounge. What this admirable Bill is trying to do is to simplfy the legal mess regarding licensing hours.
I am aware that there will be objections to the Bill, and indeed the right hon Member for Castle Point (Sir B.

Braine), who has never been hesistant in making his views clear, has told us that he fears the effects that the Bill will have on under-age drinkers. The lengthening of the licensing hours and the flexibility contained in the Bill will, by reversing the concentration of drinking time, make the supervision of young drinkers easier. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a fair wind to the Second Reading of the Bill. Once it is in Committee we can discuss any problems.
I accept that there are anomalies and dangers in the free licensing trade which enable people to go into supermarkets and off-licences and buy drink at all times of the day. I do not believe that the Bill is the right one for amending that. Hon. Members who are opposed to free access to alcohol in unlicensed places realise that if anyone is hell-bent on drinking, it is very hard to stop him. The price that is charged for the convenience and community spirit of a public house is already a deterrent to alcoholics and is very different from going into an off-licence and snatching drink with the specific desire to get drunk.
I have discussed with a Scottish chief constable the effects of flexibility of Scottish licensing hours. On the whole, he was in favour of them. He said that it had not vastly changed the amount drunk, but that it had staggered the hours during which drunks smash up their cars or are taken into custody—which was helpful. I do not believe that the non-existence of the Bill will do anything other than concentrate drunkenness and cause greater trouble.
The licensing laws are a mess. Those hon. Members who have been consulted by their constituency publicans and asked to give support to the Bill deserve an opportunity to put the arguments succinctly, and I ask that hon. Members expedite the Bill to Committee where we can consider the fine print. I am honoured to have been chosen as a sponsor of the Bill, and I wish it well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Douglas Hogg): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) both on his good fortune in winning a place in the private Members' ballot and on his fortitude in introducing the Bill, not least because my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is not completely in sympathy with it.
It might be helpful if I were to express the Government's view briefly and in general terms. My reason for that is not discourtesy to the proponents or opponents of the Bill, but is rather because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and I in no way wish to impede them. Moreover, many of the detailed points that the Government would wish to express can properly be made later should the Bill go to a subsequent stage.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will address himself to what other measures need to be taken alongside the Bill, such as have been referred to by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—the availability of alcohol on off-sales, pricing and other related matters. It is upon that that the attitudes of many hon. Members to the Bill depend. Many might accept some relaxation of the licensing laws if other measures are taken at the same time.

Mr. Hogg: We are considering this Bill, and I shall say in general terms where we stand on it. I hope that when


I have finished the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have done no injustice either to his point of view or to the point of view of any other hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood has described with considerable clarity the changes that are contemplated by the Bill, and therefore I do not want to repeat what he said. All I would do is to emphasise two points.
First, generally speaking, the variation orders would be subject to a maximum of 12 hours. Secondly, the licensees are not under an obligation to apply for longer hours. The Bill enables them to apply for longer hours in line with customer demand, subject, of course, to satisfying the court that there is a case for a variation order and that local interests have been properly taken into account.
As hon. Members will know, the Government are on record as favouring some reform of the licensing laws. We have come to that conclusion after a careful examination of the available evidence on the likely effect of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related offences. In principle, we support a measured relaxation of the present restrictions.
Hon. Members who have spoken have largely been in support of the Bill. Not surprisingly, support for flexible licensing hours has come from the drinks trade, sectors of the licensed trade and the catering, leisure and tourist industries. All those rightly point to benefits that would accrue from reform, such as employment, a boost to tourism and, indeed, the greater freedom of choice for the consumer.
However, there is another point of view. It is the point of view of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is a notable exponent. We, as a House, would be foolish to dismiss the sincerely held views of organisations and individuals who warn that longer hours will lead to an increase in alcohol consumption and to alcohol-related problems.
I want to make it clear that the Government would not wish to do anything that would exacerbate the incidence of alcohol abuse, the deaths and injury caused by drunken driving or the domestic violence and criminal offences committed under the influence of alcohol. All those are important considerations to which the House will wish to attach importance.

Mr. Best: Rather than doing nothing, will the Government do something, such as looking again at the funding of detoxification centres and trying to deal with the massive increase of alcohol abuse by young people and under-age drinking? We are spending a lot of money on heroin and cocaine abuse. but nothing, effectively, on alcohol abuse.

Mr. Hogg: The Government understand the importance of the point that has been made so eloquently, not only today, but on previous occasions by my hon. Friend. This is an area in which we are considering what can properly be done. We attach considerable importance to the maintenance of adequate and effective control on licensed outlets, especially because of our concern about alcohol misuse.
We have taken considerable note of the reports on alcohol misuse which the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners and others have published recently. We continue to share their concern about the health and social harm that can

result from excessive or inappropriate drinking, and remain committed to developing effective health education and the appropriate preventive measures.
Moreover — this is specifically a matter of Home Office concern—we have substantial reservations about the resource costs that the Bill will involve. There are about 122,000 licensed and registered club premises in England and Wales which could apply to the courts for variation orders, and a reasonable assumption is that about 75 per cent. will seek to do so in the first year. Clearly, that will occupy a substantial amount of court time. Moreover, it will inevitably impose substantial burdens upon the police. The House must take those matters into account.
In conclusion, the Government favour a liberalisation of the licensing laws in England and Wales. The approach that has been adopted in the Bill is, perhaps, not the Government's preference, because of the resource implications to which I referred. We do not wish to oppose the Bill, but if it proceeds to Committee—that is for the House to decide—we shall need to consider whether amendments might be necessary to reduce the resource cost implications.
I recognise that many will regard the Bill as a step in the right direction. It is for the House, not the Government, to decide whether the Bill should proceed further today.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Everybody agrees that, although alcohol is a source of pleasure and relaxation for many, it is a harmful product for a minority. We must judge the Bill on the extent to which it may increase the harm to the minority, as against the pleasure or added pleasure that it could give to the majority. Virtually all countries in the world face that difficult problem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on his success in the ballot. However, I should have preferred any approach to relaxing the licensing hours to have been part and parcel of an overall approach to tackling alcohol abuse. I should have preferred more emphasis to be placed on health education and better funding for provisions in the community to help those who suffer from alcoholism and alcohol abuse. Although I am not seeking in any way to criticise the hon. Member for Eastwood—a private Member's Bill must inevitably be limited in its scope if it is to succeed—I should have preferred the Government to grasp the problem and to say, "Let us tackle this as an overall problem", instead of allowing it to go through in piecemeal measures. Another measure is going through the other place to relax the licensing provision for restaurants, which may well find favour in the House. Again, that is a piecemeal approach and I think that the House and the country would prefer to see an overall approach.
Over recent years there has been a significant increase in alcohol consumption. We have seen an increase in all types of outlets—on and off-licence outlets—that sell alcohol. At the same time, the policy of successive Governments has effectively reduced the real price of many types of alcohol to consumers. In other words, alcohol has become cheaper. There must be a relationship between that and increased alcohol consumption.
It would be wrong to say that there is not a serious problem of alcohol abuse. We know that families break up because of it, that teenage drinking can be a serious


problem, that absenteeism and job losses are associated with alcoholism, that many crimes, from football hooliganism to murder, are strongly associated with alcoholism and that many road accidents have alcohol as a major contributory factor. Many organisations have produced the statistics to support what I have said. I shall not take up the time of the House in quoting them.
Sometimes we make comparisons with drinking on the continent. People say, "Would it not be nice if our pubs were like cafes in France, with a family atmosphere and none of the pressure to drink?"
All too often in pubs in this country there is the pressure to confine oneself to drinking alcohol. Although coffee and soft drinks are available, all too often the atmosphere is that one is there to drink alcohol and not other beverages. I wish that there was a more purposeful move in our pubs—there has been a move already—towards making the atmosphere less one of concentration on alcohol only and on other things that can be a part of social and relaxing evenings.
On the other hand, in countries such as France there is a more serious problem of alcoholism than in this country. Perhaps the fact that there are virtually no limits on the hours in which alcohol can be bought is a contributory factor to the greater prevalence of alcoholism in France than in this country.
I shall refer briefly to the Bill, because I do not wish to take up more than a few minutes of the time of the House. I note that it will allow an increase to up to 13 hours a day during which pubs can be open, with specific outer limits. I am not against flexibility, but I wonder whether it is right to have the flexibility that the Bill proposes. I should have preferred the flexibility to be in the context of the present limits on hours, within nine and a half hours' drinking time rather than a 13-hour day.

Mr. Allan Stewart: May I make one point clear? The Bill allows for opening for up to 12 hours within a 13-hour period. The maximum is 12, not 13 hours.

Mr. Dubs: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have said that 13 hours is the maximum parameter, with 12 hours drinking time within that.
Nevertheless, my point holds. I should have thought that it would have been a more acceptable and a safer step, if we are to adopt a piecemeal approach, to go for flexibility in the context of a nine-and-a-half hour maximum drinking day rather than the hours envisaged in the Bill.
I am also concerned about the impact upon those who work in pubs. Some may welcome the longer hours, but I suspect that for others the longer hours will be a burden and it will be difficult for them to get home later at night. However, I welcome the undertaking by the hon. Member for Eastwood that, if the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill today, the Committee will be the appropriate occasion to add elements of health education to the measure. I welcome that, although I wish that the Bill had started off in that way. It would have been more acceptable at the outset if it had contained those elements.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the title of the Bill scarcely permits much discussion, let alone amendment in that area? The title states that the Bill enables

different permitted hours to be specified for individual on-licensed premises and registered clubs.
The procedure of the House may not allow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to live up to the helpful undertaking that he tried to give.

Mr. Dubs: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why I said that I should have preferred it if, at the outset, the Bill had sought to cover all those matters. I should have preferred that to the hopes being expressed that somehow we might manage it in Committee, because some of us have been taken in by that before. Committees are not always successful in achieving that.
I agree with the Minister that it is for the House to decide. If the measure is approved and receives a Second Reading today, I hope very much that important amendments will be made in Committee. For the moment, I leave it to my colleagues to decide how they wish to vote, if we have a vote on Second Reading today.

Sir George Young: I do not propose to speak for long, but I want to inject a note of caution from the Conservative Benches about the Bill.
Over the past few days I have read in the papers that the Government support the Bill. In his speech, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department put a gloss on that. I believe that he said that the Government do not wish to obstruct the Bill. That places a slightly different complexion on things. He also said that the Government did not want to do anything that would exacerbate the problems of alcohol abuse. The opponents of the Bill claim that it would make the problems worse.
I have no rooted objection to liberalisation. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is claiming that the licensing laws are out of date with regard to opening hours and that society should adjust that interface, surely there are other points at which society and alcohol interface which should be examined. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, I am worried that the opportunity to take a slightly broader look at the role of alcohol in society will be missed.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in the Chamber because I am most concerned about the health aspects. I have examined the evidence from Scotland and, in common with many hon. Members, I listened to a research fellow from Paisley. The evidence from Scotland is somewhat conflicting. Evidence can be produced for both sides as was revealed on the "Today" programme and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood might have heard that programme if he was awake at that early hour. The unbiased listener would have come away with the impression that the case is not proven.
The Government have a pre-eminent role in this debate. They virtually fix the price of alcohol because excise duty is such a high proportion of the price. Parliament decides the age at which people shall drink and through the licensing hours we control opening hours. The Government are heavily involved on the health side as the DHSS provides detoxification centres. Through their influence on the Health Education Council, the Government influence the way in which the dangers of alcohol are promoted. Through their agreement with the brewing industry, they control how alcohol is advertised on television and elsewhere.
It is wrong to consider only one interface between alcohol and society and tackle that but not consider the other interfaces. Because of the way in which the Bill is drawn, the opportunity to take a broader look is denied to us. I regard the Bill as a dry run. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood has started a useful debate on this subject and that the Government, after we have won the election, will introduce a Bill which may incorporate provisions along the lines of my hon. Friend's Bill. I hope that a Government Bill will also do something about the problems.
A representative from the Brewers Society conceded on the BBC "Breakfast Time" programme that there were problems, and said that there was a real difficulty about under-age drinking. If the Brewers Society admits that there is such a problem, we should try to consider that alongside increasing moves dealing with increasing the opportunities for drinking.
As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood moved the Bill in a moderate and sensible way. However, if there is a Division I will not follow him in the Lobby, not through any fundamental opposition to his proposals, but because I believe that other points must be tackled at the same time. The Bill does not allow me the opportunity to consider such problems.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I wish to join other hon. Members in expressing my warmest thanks to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) who comes from a part of the United Kingdom where a more enlightened attitude prevails. He has had the generosity of spirit to try to extend the benefits of civilisation to the benighted English. Clearly, King Edward I has been forgiven.
I support the Bill because it is the best that we have. However, I have certain criticisms. I do not understand why Sundays should be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. If it is not sinful to drink in a public house at 2 o'clock on a Sunday, why should it be sinful at 4 o'clock? I cannot see the point of that exclusion. As for weekdays, I strongly support the view that a licensee should be able to decide the most appropriate opening hours for his pub. Why then should he have to apply to the magistrates' court for a variation order? Why can he not merely register his hours so that they can be checked and monitored by the police?
In my constituency, at the last count there were 115 pubs and many clubs. In the Rotherham area as a whole the total must be well over 300. If all those licensees, or even the majority of them, applied to Rotherham magistrates' court for variation orders, I share the concern expressed by the Minister about the burden that that would impose on the magistrates. There is no reason why such a restriction should be introduced.
My third reservation is that I do not believe that the maximum number of hours should be as high as 12. Very few licensees will wish to open their premises for as many as 12 hours a day. Probably 10 or 10½ would be more appropriate.
All those matters can be considered in Committee and there is no reason in what I have just said for not giving the Bill a Second Reading.
I deplore the hysterical campaign that has been mounted in recent weeks against the Bill. Much of the opposition has been based on deliberate lies or on evidence

which, to say the least, is dubious. I especially deplore the activities of the organisation called Alcohol Concern, which is clearly more concerned with alcohol than it is with the truth. It sent a circular to hon. Members saying that the Bill provides for all-day opening. Anyone who thinks that the Bill provides for all-day opening must start his day at 10.30 am; if so, he is more fortunate than many of us. The British Medical Association has issued stern warnings about a massive increase in alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases resulting from the Bill. I do not believe it. If people can enjoy a drink in a more relaxed and leisurely way, it will reduce alcoholism, not increase it.
I must put this question to hon. Members who, from time to time, visit licensed premises. I do occasionally. Do they see alcoholics in pubs? I do not. I see people enjoying a drink, usually in company. Occasionally, I see people who may have had a little too much, but that is not the same as alcoholism. I am convinced that private, secret, solitary drinking in the home is a much greater cause of alcoholism than is social drinking in a public house. The serious problem of widespread alcohol abuse is much more associated with the ready supply of alcohol in supermarkets than it is with the ability to get a drink in a pub.
Making pub opening hours more flexible will not have the slightest effect on alcoholism. The Bill is about flexibility, not about longer hours, although that may result in some cases. I strongly support its main purpose of making opening hours more flexible. I do not advocate a free-for-all in pubs any more than I support a free-for-all in the retail trade, which is why I opposed the Government's ill-fated Shops Bill. But licensees must be treated as responsible citizens who know best how to run their businesses within reasonable statutory limits. Vie must stop treating them as an anti-social breed of people who must be rigidly controlled, licensed, watched, monitored and visited by the police to see whether they are leading the innocent public on to the path of wickedness. We must get rid of that attitude.
Apart from the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastwood, the Bill is supported by the Transport and General Workers Union, which organises bar staff and can see in the Bill the opportunity to create much more employment. Ii is also supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, of 'which I am also a member, which represents many thousands of the most discerning customers.

Mr. Beith: I hope that in his comments about the restrictions on licensees the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there should be removed from the control of alcohol the procedures that require licensees to place themselves before a magistrates' court and have police approval. That is one of the protections and one of the means by which we ensure that the licensed trade is run, by and large, by extremely responsible people.

Mr. Crowther: I fully support that point and do not suggest that those restrictions should be removed. Having received his licence and thus secured the approval of the licensing bench, the licensee should be allowed to get on with his business in a responsible way.
If the Bill is turned down, the House cannot escape the charge of double standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) reminded us that i he bar in the House to which hon. Members may take personal


guests is open at all hours of the day and night for as long as the House sits. Any hon. Member who opposes this Bill must, if he wishes to be consistent, table a motion to close the Strangers' Bar at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and at 11 o'clock at night. I wonder how far he would get with that?

Sir Bernard Braine: At first glance this Bill, which seeks a relaxation of licensing hours, seems reasonable enough. It was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in a speech of quiet moderation. It is certainly much less objectionable than two previous private Members' Bills on the subject, of which I earlier took the opportunity to remind the House, aimed at introducing children under 14 into licensed bars. One of them actually proposed that children under 14 should be introduced unaccompanied into licensed bars. That Bill got a Second Reading and went to Committee, but when it again reached the Floor of the House the penny had dropped and hon. Members realised the iniquity of such legislation. Rightly the House threw out that Bill and threw out the other one as well.
I have listened intently to the debate but I wish to oppose the Bill for three main reasons. First, I am worried about a measure that provides not only for longer hours but for flexibility within those hours. That is all very well for the licensee, but one must consider the opportunity for drinking that this presents to the customer. It is that with which licensing is primarily concerned and which over the years has caused Parliament to be cautious on the subject of licensing.
One consequence of the flexibility provided by the Bill is the opportunity that it gives to people to drink continuously for up to 13 hours. It is not, therefore, the modest measure that my hon. Friend introduced with his quiet charm. It would have the affect of extending drinking time from nine and half hours, with the present afternoon break, to 13 hours. That is an increase of one third.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall certainly give way, but I have a great deal to say, and I understand that other hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in a dwelling house one can drink at any time of the day? In Scotland, one can drink at any time of the day and people can have a drink when they want one. They do not say to themselves, "I am allowed to drink for 13 hours, and I will do that." People have a choice about when they want to drink. If a person comes off night shift or day shift, he can have a drink and it becomes natural and not forbidden. Anything that echoes prohibition increases the charm of doing that which is forbidden.

Sir Bernard Braine: With his customary forensic skill, my hon. and learned Friend has made a statement of the obvious. The overwhelming majority of people in Britain who frequent public houses drink moderately. The overwhelming majority of people who consume liquor in the home drink moderately and the overwhelming majority of parents with young children see to it that they

are not introduced to alcohol until they have some judgment of their own. We are not talking about that. We are talking about a growing minority who misuse alcohol.
I should like to make two statements. First, alcohol is a pleasant adjunct to civilised living. It adds to conviviality and sociability. It is a delight to us all and, drunk with moderation, it can add to the sum of human happiness. Second, alcohol is a potent drug which, as we know from experience in this country, in Scotland and all over the world, can harm health, shorten life and cause an immense toll of human misery. It has been said many time before by eminent medical men that if alcohol was invented now it would have to be on medical prescription because, used immoderately, it is damaging to health. Parliament alone, because this is the sole regulating body, can decide what should be the parameters within which this potent drug shall be consumed.
It is significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), a former Health Minister who spoke earlier, was critical of the Bill. I too had a spell at the Department of Health and Social Security and I am critical of the Bill for good health reasons.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: If my hon. and learned Friend seeks to intervene he will lengthen the speech I have to make. I have to make this speech because so far, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Acton a considered view of the Bill and what it will do or not do has not been expressed.
I object to the Bill because it must be viewed against the serious background of alcohol abuse, especially among adolescents, young adults and the increase in under-age drinking in public houses. It is no good for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood to tell us that some chief constable says that the Bill is all right. All I can say is that up and down the country the field officers, superintendents of police who have to enforce the law, are worried about under-age drinking.

Mr. Lawrence: While my right hon. Friend is getting a drink of water, may I ask whether his information from chief constables is that they are opposed to the Bill or in favour of it?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am concerned not with opinion but with fact. I shall quote from the journal described as the best evening newspaper in the country, "The Evening Echo", covering south-east Essex and my constituency. It states:
Children as young as 12 are drinking in pubs, a police chief claims. Some are even boozing during their school lunch breaks, he says".
It went on:
I believe some youngsters leave their schools during their dinner break for a lunchtime drink. If they are going out to the chip shop they can easily go on to a pub without the school being aware … Basildon police commander, Chief Superintendant Alan Gilling, said youngsters were more likely after drinking to commit offences such as criminal damage, theft, burglary and stealing.
I could produce much more such evidence. If the Bill ever goes to a Standing Committee we will get the facts, not the opinions of this chief constable or that chief constable. We shall get the opinions of the police officers who have the task of enforcing the law, who, for example, have to deal with drunken youths late at night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman has his back to the Chair and the rest of the House. He must address the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: I was straying because of the interruptions from the Benches behind me because those interruptions indicate the uneasiness of the proponents of the Bill who now fear that its seeming moderation will not delude the House into thinking that it can be passed without harm, and possibly even with some moderate benefit.
The third reason why I object to the Bill is that I do not believe that tampering with the licensing laws regarding availability is a matter for private Members. It is one for Government. Moreover, no Government should approve any tampering with the licensing laws until they are able to present the House with a national strategy to deal with the problems of alcohol abuse and are ready to achieve a more co-ordinated approach. No fewer than 16 Government Departments have responsibilities in regard to the production and sale of alcohol or the amelioration of the problems that its use entails.
No such strategy has been developed. I must remind the House that the Erroll report, which started some of my hon. Friends down the road of seeking the liberalisation of licensing laws, was severely criticised at the time by the medical authorities for its complacent and ill-informed disregard of the dangers of liberalisation in terms of public health. I should like to quote from a leader in the British Medical Journal at the time, which said bluntly:
From the public health point of view the report's major proposals must be condemned as untimely. Their adoption in practice would be to risk a further increase in alcoholism, with its attendant dangers to harmony in the home and life on the roads.
If it was untimely to liberalise the licensing laws in 1972, it is infinitely more untimely to do so in 1987 because, since 1972, the epidemic of medical and social problems caused by the misuse of alcohol has not abated. On the contrary, it has increased in scale and severity because, over the years, legal and other controls on alcohol consumption and misuse have been gradually whittled away. I have some sympathy for hon. Members who referred to the way in which, in a fit of absent mindedness I suppose, the House has approved the proliferation of outlets for the sale of alcohol. We have allowed the proliferation of outlets—the sale of liquor in restaurants, clubs, corner shops, supermarkets and even garages. We have allowed the price of alcohol to grow ever cheaper in real terms to such an extent that the average consumer is now able to buy, from a greatly increased choice of outlets, three bottles of whisky for the same money in real terms as his or her parents would have required to buy one.
This hugely increased availability of alcohol has arisen more through a protracted fit of absent mindedness than by any conscious desire. No Government deliberately sought the doubling of alcohol consumption which has occurred in Britain since the 1950s. It has nevertheless happened, and it is the result of a series of changes which are unco-ordinated and fairly small, but their cumulative effect has propelled us into a national alcohol problem the like of which we have not seen since the turn of the century.
We are today asked to support yet another measure which would take us one more step down this dismal road. We shall not be able to claim this time that we have stepped blindly in the wrong direction, for we have been told in the clearest possible terms by expert bodies that

further liberalisation of licensing laws is virtually certain to result, in the short or longer-term, in an exacerbation of what is already one of the most serious public health problems facing the country.
The House knows that I speak as a former chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. I am currently president of the Greater London Alcohol Advisory Service—the people who have to pick up the pieces in the metropolis. I do not know of one reputable body which is concerned with public health that supports the Bill. We have been told that some publicans favour it, that the drinks trade favours it and that one chief police officer favours it, but we have not been told of the public health bodies that support it .
The British Medical Association opposes the Bill. Alcohol Concern, which is the Government's appointed agency for tackling alcohol abuse, opposes it. The Institute of Alcohol Studies opposes it, as does Action on Alcohol Abuse, a body established by the medical royal colleges. In Scotland, the Scottish Council on Alcohol and the Alcohol Studies Centre at Paisley has vigorously and persistently rebutted the claim that the so-called Scottish experiment provides support for the further liberalisation of the law in England and Wales. Both oppose the Bill. Thus the most significant and telling feature of the debate is that the expert bodies that are concerned to protect public health uniformly oppose further liberalisation while supporters of relaxation, almost without exception, have a clear vested interest in increasing alcohol sales.
I do not condemn the liquor trade for seeking to increase its sales, for that is what it is in business to do. We have long since passed the stage, however, when the interests of the trade should be allowed to have priority over the nation's health, and that is the crux of the issue.
It may be, as is said by proponents of reform, that further liberalisation will boost the tourist trade, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence in support of that claim. The figures from the British Tourist Authority show that between 1979 and 1985 the number of overseas tourists visiting Scotland increased by 8 per cent. Unfortunately for the advocates of liberalisation, during the same period the number of overseas tourists visiting England increased by 54 per cent. Between 1973 and 1985, overseas tourism increased in Scotland by 33 per cent. while it increased by 77 per cent. in Britain as a whole over the same period. I would not claim that the relatively poor figures for Scotland are due to the dislike of foreign tourists for all-day opening. Such an argument would be absurd, but it would not be more absurd than the claim made by the proponents of liberalisation that English licensing laws have an adverse effect on the tourist trade.
The Bill's supporters assert that liberalisation would create much-needed new jobs. That claim has already been made in this debate, and specific figures have been mentioned. Liberalisation would also mean that consumers would shift spending from other goods to spending on alcohol, which would lead to job losses elsewhere. In fact, the job argument gives the game away. The licensing trade and the proponents of liberalisation are apt to claim that reform will lead only to more leisurely and civilised drinking. How could it create additional jobs except by increasing overall consumption? How else will the putative extra jobs be financed?
The other argument is that our existing pub opening hours are a paternalistic affront to the British public's sensibilities.

Mr. Lawrence: Hear, hear.

Sir Bernard Braine: I know that my hon. and learned Friend holds that opinion sincerely. We disagree on some issues but we agree on many others.
If the paternalistic-affront argument were valid, I, like other hon. Members, would expect to be besieged by irate constituents clamouring to be given their freedom from arbitrary interference by the licensing laws. I have received few such letters. I receive many complaints from constituents who object to the noise, fracas and violence that they have to experience as a result of a public house being close to residential property, but not about the liberalisation of licensing laws.
The "Beer Market Survey" that was carried out by Public Attitudes Surveys Research Limited in August 1985 found that 60 per cent. of the population felt that existing opening hours were right. Indeed, there were many who favoured shorter opening hours. There are those who claim that liberalisation in Scotland has proved highly popular with the public, and that will be the response in England and Wales. In fact, my advisers and I have carefully studied the many public opinion surveys that have been taken on the subject. These reveal that the elements of reform that have proved popular in Scotland are precisely those that brought Scotland into line with England and Wales.
The 1986 Goddard Survey from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that only a minority of respondents positively approved of afternoon opening, which, of course, is a central issue of the Bill. Indeed, the most frequently mentioned disadvantages of afternoon opening were fears of more heavy drinking, more anti-social behaviour and adverse effects on family life. Opinions were even less favourable towards late evening extensions than towards afternoon opening. Considerably more respondents mentioned the disadvantages rather than the advantages of late evening extensions.
The Bill has not been introduced as a result of the irresistible force of public opinion — of constituents queuing up at hon. Members' weekly surgeries, demanding liberalisation of licensing hours. Nor is the real issue to do with the convenience of overseas tourists. The issue is whether we encourage more drinking and can afford to take yet another step in the dismantling of one of the few remaining controls on alcohol abuse.
The intervention that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) made at the beginning of my remarks prompts me to consider the background to the debate in a little detail. Since the 1950s, overall alcohol consumption in the United Kingdom has doubled and all the indices of alcohol-related harm have risen commensurately. The Royal College of General Practitioners, in its report published as recently as last November, calculated that alcohol misuse is directly responsible for about 40,000 premature deaths each year in the United Kingdom. Alcohol is directly implicated in 10 per cent. of all deaths of persons under 25 years of age. Studies have shown that approximately one in five admissions to general hospitals are alcohol related. That is about half the rate in France, yet the Bill would take us a little further towards the French level.
In the past decade alone, admissions to psychiatric hospitals for alcohol-related problems have doubled. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health

and Social Security in the Chamber. She will have these facts at her finger tips, and so will my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. As a former Health Minister myself I cannot ignore these facts. The House of Commons cannot ignore them either.
Perhaps extra employment will be provided if the Bill is passed. That seems to be a bull point made by the proponents of the Bill. It will certainly mean extra doctors, nurses, social workers, alcohol consultants and police officers, for alcohol is the common thread running through a range of medical and social problems, from premature death and avoidable illness to absenteeism at work and football hooliganism. In recent years all these problems have grown worse. The House has been concerned about them again and again but it does not add them all up. Surely we must look at the picture as a whole. Abuse is linked with an increase in overall consumption.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has given a clear warning. It tells us:
It is increasingly accepted that in general there is a clear link between the overall consumption"—
of alcohol—
in a country and the level of alcohol related harm there … Changes in consumption affect drinkers at every level and upwards changes will shift some of those drinking at the top of the 'moderate' range into the high risk zone.
How foolish we should be to pass this modest measure on the assumption that it will not add one tittle to what is manifestly already a major problem.
Moreover, it is clear that regular and in many cases heavy drinking is becoming more entrenched with each new generation. The latest Home Office statistics on drunkenness—if I am wrong about this, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will correct me—reveal that the rate of convictions is now higher among 16 and 17-yearolds than among 30 to 60-year-olds. The recent Office of Population Censuses and Survey's survey on adolescent drinking provides yet more information, as if any were needed, that we have a massive problem of under-age drinking. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, in an examination of Home Office statistics from 1955 to 1985, has found that the under-21s now account for one in four of all drunkenness offences, compared with one in 12 30 years ago. Under-age drinkers now account for one in 14 of all drunkenness offences, compared with one in 100 30 years ago.
In February 1986, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health why he did not publish the findings of the OPCS survey on adolescent drinking, which his Department had commissioned. The fieldwork for this survey was carried out in 1984. It was delivered to his Department in October 1985. Despite that, the report was not released until 17 December 1986, just before the Christmas recess. I fail to understand the reluctance to publish, and I have been given no explanation for the year's delay.
What are the findings of that survey? Among 13-yearolds, 19 per cent. of boys and 14 per cent. of girls who drink do so in public houses. Among 15-year-olds, this figure rises to 44 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively, and among 17-year-olds the figures are 68 per cent. and 57 per cent. What can we say about a chief police officer who sees the law being flagrantly broken in this way but is satisfied that this modest little measure will make a useful contribution? I would like to know who that chief officer is. His name should be stated in the House.
There is good reason to believe that the earlier that a young person begins a habit of regular drinking, the more likely it is that he or she will drink heavily later in life. We have an enormous problem with alcohol now, but there is an even greater one in preparation unless present trends can be reversed. That is the criterion by which this Bill should be judged. Will it do anything to reduce the level of harm arising from misuse of alcohol, or will it cause more young people to drink to excess?
Understandably, the drink trade is keen to entice the younger generation into pubs, because they are providing its best customers. I fear that it will be the younger generation, including, in all probability, under-age drinkers, who will form a large part of the clientele until 11·30 pm if the Bill is passed. The claim that a solution to even a small part of our problem of alcohol abuse is to open public houses all day is so opposed to common sense and so unlikely that it cannot be taken seriously.
I agree that the question is a complex one. What has or has not occurred in Scotland is difficult to assess. The statistics are ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways, but it seems clear that there is no basis for the claim that the Scottish experiment proves that licensing liberalisation would be of benefit in England and Wales.
It is frequently stated that, since 1976, drunkenness in Scotland has declined and that that has been due to extending the hours and thereby reducing the "beat the clock" drinking. It is true that convictions for drunkenness have declined in Scotland since 1976, but that decline has been so precipitous—the conviction rate in 1984 was less than half that of 1979—that it is inconceivable that it is the result of reform in the licensing laws. A fall of such magnitude is much more likely to be the result of a change in police practices. That suspicion is given considerable support when one considers that, since 1976, while officially recorded drunkenness figures have declined, the figures for breach of the peace and petty assault—both alcohol related—have increased.
According to Stephen Allsop, director of the Alcohol Studies Centre at Paisley, overall alcohol-related public order offences in Scotland have increased since licensing reform. That is incontrovertible.
The decline in drunkenness offences in Scotland did not begin until 1981 during which period there was also a decline in England and Wales. That decline started in England and Wales and the reason was that the economic recession was hitting people in their pockets. They drank less because they had less money to spend.

Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that decline was due to the introduction of legislation in 1980 that banned drink from or near football grounds?

Sir Bernard Braine: That may well be a factor. The number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver—normally used as the best indirect measure of the extent of alcohol abuse in a society — appears to be much clearer. Unfortunately, for the proponents of liberalisation—again based on calculations at the Alcohol Studies Centre at Paisley—between 1975 and 1985 deaths from cirrhosis of the liver have increased in Scotland by more than two-and-a-half times the level experienced in England and Wales. That is consistent with OPCS findings that extending opening hours in Scotland may have encouraged already heavy drinkers to drink more.
It is true that a small number of other academic studies have suggested that licensing relaxation has not had a significant effect on alcohol misuse. However, I say with certainty—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon will agree with me—that informed opinion is that it is unlikely that relaxation has improved matters in Scotland and that relaxation has worsened the position. In the words of a statement published by the British Medical Association only this week, the available evidence in favour of relaxation is controversial and highly questionable, and indeed it is hardly a satisfactory basis for extending the Scottish experiment into England and Wales.
The dangers of extending hours are all too evident. There is the danger that this will increase alcohol consumption and will encourage heavy drinkers to drink still more. I have already referred to the evidence that has shown that that is precisely what has happened in Scotland. There is also the danger of increased risk on our roads.
It is almost inevitable that, if public houses in a given locality open and close at different times, some people will travel from one public house to another to maximise drinking time. How will they travel? It takes a great deal of credulity to believe that that travel will not be made by road vehicles.
It is significant that the Department of Transport, in its evidence to the Erroll Committee, opposed the possibility of flexible hours on exactly those grounds. It expressed the fear thar flexible drinking hours would coincide with afternoon traffic peaks between 4 pm and 6 pm. Those fears are as well founded today as they were then.
Department of Transport figures reveal that between 3·30 pm and 6 pm is the peak time for traffic accidents, especially those involving children—I emphasise that. At such times children would be making their way home from school. In the absence of special measures against drinking and driving, this Bill, if introduced, will bring about even greater dangers to road users than exist at present. As we know, alcohol is already the main cause of road traffic accidents. It may be that the young would welcome the Bill, but let me remind the House that the major cause of death for young males between the ages of 16 and 24 is a road accident in which alcohol has been a factor.
My postbag has contained letters from the Campaign against Drunk Driving, the aid group composed of victims' families. I remember one particularly moving letter from a family whose son was killed by a motorist who had been drinking during the afternoon, the extension having been granted by the magistrates.
Not only are there fears about afternoon extensions; there are also fears about late evening extensions. How will people get home after 11.30 pm? We already know of the particularly high rate of drink-driving accidents in the late evening. Over the Christmas period the brewers said, "Don't get a ban, get a bus". How do these gentlemen move about their business? Where does one get buses so easily these days after 11·30 pm? What happens here in the great metropolis to many bus conductors as a result of people having had too much to drink? This is madness, and it is high time somebody stood up in the House and said that Government neglect of the overall problems and the pretence that vested interests have, somehow or other, all our interests at heart and that there is nothing to worry about is wrong. The evidence to the contrary is there. How can it be ignored?
Thirdly, there is the symbolic significance of licensing law itself. The law is important not just because of its direct effect in controlling alcohol misuse, but also because its very existence is a way of informing society, especially children and young people, that alcohol is a special commodity requiring special treatment. What lesson would the young learn from the introduction of a measure such as this? Would it help us to convince them, as we need to do, that alcohol is a special commodity which should be treated with caution?
Any doctor will confirm that alcohol is the most potent pharmacological depressant freely available without prescription and its misuse can damage almost every organ and system of the body. I am talking of misuse by young immature people. The evidence is there of under—age drinking. The licensee has all my sympathy because it is difficult these days to distinguish between somebody who is under 18 and somebody who is over 18.
The Government are campaigning hard against the threat posed by illegal drugs and they are right to do so. But we must be careful not to appear hypocritical in the eyes of young people. If we tell them that their drugs are dangerous and must be banned but ours are enjoyable and can be pushed all day and that we want to extend the hours in which they can be enjoyed, our efforts to curb the abuse of both alcohol and illegal drugs will be undermined.
It may be argued that public houses are being asked to bear too high a proportion of the blame for alcohol misuse. Is it not the case that the proliferation of outlets has meant, as has been said, that if one wants to drink, one will, because it is easy to obtain liquor? If we had a proper licensing law and parallel accompanying measures, including appropriate excise duties, we would not be facing the epidemic that we are faced with today. I hope that I have given the House enough reasons to cause it to think again about the Bill and will not give it a Second Reading.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has deployed some aspects of the case against proceeding with the Bill. Even those who have not campaigned in the long and dedicated way that he has for a more systematic approach to our licensing laws should look at the position in which we are left following the Minister's speech. Not all hon. Members who are present now heard what the Minister said.
I advised him earlier that it would be of great relevance to the attitude of many hon. Members if he could announce that, in conjuction with enabling the Bill to go through the House, he would ensure that the Government took steps to deal with some of the other problems that have been referred to by hon. Members of all parties, even by those hon. Members who are sponsors of the Bill. Such problems are the ease with which alcohol can be obtained from off—licences by people who are under age, and problems of enforcement, pricing, health education and alcoholism. We have not received any evidence from the Government that help will be given on any of those points. The Minister said that the Government are looking at them, but they have been looking at them for years. I cannot recall an occasion on which a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box during a debate on licensing laws and

has not said that the Government are looking at those problems. However, those problems have become consistently worse.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the latest issue of "Social Trends" which shows dramatically how the real value of whisky has decreased? Surely an element in the increase of alcohol consumption, apart from the availability points upon which the hon. Gentleman has touched, is that the real value of alcohol has fallen.

Mr. Beith: It is well known that the price of alcohol has fallen. There is a great deal of evidence from many countries that price and consumption are closely related. When the price is low, consumption is higher, as can be seen from the evidence that is adduced from Scotland.
Equally important to the way in which hon. Members judge the Bill today is not just what the Minister said, but what the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said when he introduced the Bill—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) wish to intervene? I see that he is speaking from a sedentary position.
I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Eastwood in saying that he should like to have discussions in the context of the Bill about the other problems which I have described. However, he cannot do so in Committee because the Bill is specifically to enable different committed hours to be specified for individual unlicensed premises and clubs and I am sorry to say that the Chairman would have to call him to order constantly if he sought to extend it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My point was that a private Member cannot, by definition, commit the Government to extra expenditure on health education.

Mr. Beith: Indeed, that is so. Therefore, amendments could not be tabled to the hon. Gentleman's Bill to deal with the price and taxation points that I have mentioned. However, the title of his Bill could have allowed it to be extended to some of the problems of off-sales, as well as of order and the difficulties that licensees and others face in enforcing the under-age drinking laws at present. There would have been scope for extensions if the title of the Bill had been wider—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are trying to intervene, but I shall not give way because many other hon. Members still wish to speak.
There is a lot more that I should like to say, because we should have the opportunity of considering not just licensing hours in isolation but the means by which we can deal with the health problems and the problems of violence presented by alcohol.
I need refer only to what happened on New Year's Eve. The Home Secretary is currently conducting inquiries into the events of old year's night in various parts of the country. According to an article in The Times,
Staff at the Sunderland District General hospital in Tyne and Wear are said to have been appalled at the extent of the injuries which occurred at new year, the majority of which were directly related to alcohol abuse
and, of course, to alcohol abuse in a period of licensing extension because special extensions were granted on New Year's Eve. The article continues:
Between 8 pm on New Year's Eve and 6 am the following morning, the hospital treated 118 patients for injuries resulting from violence and drunkenness. These included a stabbing, several assaults and a serious head injury.


The article reported that the statement issued by the hospital said:
'Many of the patients were abusive, although the staff were spared from being physically assaulted this year owing to a heavy police presence which had been arranged in advance."'
That police presence was arranged in advance because the hospital knew that extended licensing hours would give rise to problems that night. Such grave problems cannot be discussed in isolation. We need the opportunity to consider what other measures could make an extension of the licensing hours a reasonable step forward. The House had not been given that opportunity today.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.

Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have now had 10 speakers in the debate, and we have had speeches from both the Opposition and Government Front Benches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am questioning, not the decision, but the judgment, of the Chair. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have made known declarations against those who take alcohol. You are an experienced Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you know that the debate has not been properly conducted to allow the case for and against to be presented. I submit that that is a point of challenge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can have his opinion.

It being after half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 27 March.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

SCHOOL GOVERNORS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Stan Crowther: Friday 6 March.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that that is with the leave of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Crowther: Yes. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is unable to be present.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 March.

POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Robin Squire: With the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 6 February.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 February.

SOCIAL FUND (MATERNITY AND FUNERAL EXPENSES) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Maude.]

Overseas Pensioners

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. Neil Thorne: As I am chairman of Ilford Age Concern, it will come as no surprise to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that I should like to see a substantial increase in the national retirement pension.
Increasing numbers of my constituents are asking me why the Government are paying out unemployment and other benefits to unemployed school leavers who have never worked when other industrialised countries pay unemployment benefit only to those who have earned it through contributions made while in employment. Those countries which make it much harder by relating benefits to contributions then seem to be in a better position to be more generous with their retirement pensions for those who have regularly contributed throughout their working lives. I am not suggesting that young people should be left destitute, but I propose that it should be made much harder for any young person to exercise the option of drawing the dole and staying at home, particularly when there are now so many training schemes and opportunity programmes.
I was very pleased to meet one young man in my constituency earlier this week working on the test bench at Plessey Military Communications, who had first joined the company on a youth training scheme and is now an integral part of its work force. He is earning good money.
As I have said, countries that make it much harder by relating benefits to contributions seem to be in a better position to be more generous with their retirement pensions for those who have regularly contributed throughout their working lives. My suggestion would introduce a new concept. At present pensions are paid under the Social Security Act 1975. Instead of being a return on contributions made throughout the working life, they are paid out of current taxation. In my view, a good Conservative principle would relate much more closely to contributions and benefits.
Section 82(5)(a) of the Social Security Act 1975 provides
Except where regulations otherwise provide, a person shall be disqualified from receiving any benefit, and an increase of benefit shall not be payable in respect of any person as the beneficiary's wife or husband, for any period during which the person—
(a) is absent from Great Britain; or
(b) is undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody."
I have no quarrel with the second of those two provisos. However, I feel that having contributed towards a pension scheme throughout a working life, sometimes for 40 years or more, it is only reasonable that the person who has made such contributions should be entitled to look forward to a pension which can allow for the ravages of inflation.
We appear to have double standards in that respect. Some countries have a reciprocal arrangement with us whereby increased provisions are catered for. Other countries, however, do not have such arrangements and people who retire to those lands find that they have to exist—I use the word exist intentionally—on that level of pension for the rest of their lives.
The only basis upon which the Social Security Act 1975 provides for payments to be made overseas is under the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975, Statutory Instrument No. 563, as amended. Regulation 4(1) of that statutory instrument states:
Subject to the provisions of the regulation and regulation 5 below, a person shall not be disqualified for receiving widow's benefit, child's special allowance, a guardian's allowance or a retirement pension of any category by reason of being absent from Great Britain.
The regulations go on to restrict the amount of pension payable to the level current at the date of retirement or the date when the pensioner was last ordinarily resident in Great Britain, whichever is the later. Reciprocal agreements made with other countries under section 143 of the Social Security Act 1975 can override that disqualification from benefit uprating.
In answer to a private notice question on 17 March last year, the countries in which pensions increases can be paid, apart from those in the European Community, were shown to be Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Mauritius, Sark, Switzerland, Turkey and Yugoslavia. These countries were listed in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. He went on to say that pensioners in a further group of countries receive increases which became payable after the date that an agreement was entered into force — Bermuda from 1 November 1969, Jamaica from 1 October 1972, and the United States of America from 26 September 1969.
Those are major concessions because substantial numbers of pensioners now live in those countries. I want to give some examples. The position on 31 December 1985 was that pensioners receiving pensions without increases received an average of only £13·32 a week. In Australia there were no fewer than 96,126 recipients. In Bangladesh there were 1,253; in Canada 54,388; in New Zealand 23,167; in Pakistan 3,369; in India 2,580; Nepal — I know that my hon. Friend the Minister would not expect me to omit Nepal—there were 14 recipients; and in the United States of America there were 32,077.
Arrangements are in force in a number of those countries, but there are no provisions in other countries. My hon. Friend the Minister will note that there are more Than 8,000 pensioners in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. These pensioners have to live on the pension that they received when they first became titled as having left the country.
Although I have made no costings for the increased provision, I believe that other savings could be effected. My hon. Friend will know that the current retirement pension is £38·70 a week, to which a wife will add £23·25, making a total for a married couple of £61·95. But that is only part of the story, because people who retire are advancing in years and we must consider how much they cost the taxpayer by way of other services. Such people increase considerably the cost of the Health Service.
I shall give some examples. In 1983–84, the estimated gross current expenditure per head in England for those aged between 16 and 64 was £95 a year on hospital and community health services, £55 a year on family practitioner services and £20 a year on personal social services, making an average total of £170 a year. For those aged between 65 and 74, the figures are £370 for hospital and community health services, £85 for family practitioner services and £75 for personal social services, making a


total of £530. For those aged over 75, the figures increase sharply to £875 for hospital and community health services, £135 for family practitioner services and £330 for personal social services, making a total of £1,340 a year. That is a substantial sum and one that we must take into account when we consider the money paid to the elderly.
We should consider seriously giving those who wish to leave these shores to seek sunnier climes on retirement—which, after a lifetime of service to the community they are entitled to do, provided that their passports are endorsed with a waiver to prevent them from making subsequent claims on the Health Service—a much more generous pension to allow them to live where they wish and to be responsible for their own health needs.
My figures do not include costs in relation to part III accommodation. Many people make that additional call upon ratepayers and the community. On current figures, one would expect to pay more than £200 a week on part III accommodation. That is a total of £10,000 or more a year, which is a substantial cost to the community and which is not taken into account in the Government's calculations on pensions.
In the past, the Government have been much more concerned about reciprocal arrangements with other countries. I understand that we are about to reach a reciprocal arrangement with Canada, and the same may apply to Australia. But there will be no similar provision in the foreseeable future for India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, to which many of my constituents wish to retire. We should consider the matter in the round and not too narrowly, as we have done in the past. Hon. Members have raised the matter before. On 23 April last year, my hon Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) asked about pensioners retiring to Canada. Many people retire to Canada, Australia and New Zealand because that is where their children have emigrated and they wish to join them. It is perfectly satisfactory and suitable that people should be able to do that and, although reciprocal arrangements were speedily organised between members of the European Community, we seem to be short of achieving with the Commonwealth an arrangement that takes into account a relationship that goes back a lot further. For historical reasons if for no other reason, that should be put right.
There is a real need in relation to the new Commonwealth, and I urge my hon. and learned Friend to look closely at the matter, not in the narrow way in which it has almost exclusively been examined in the past, but globally in order to ensure that taxpayers will be as well off if not better off. The Government should also try to find a way of giving people who have spent a lifetime working in Britain what they want, which is to spend their last few years in their chosen place of abode.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on raising the matter of pensions payable to those who choose to live abroad. We know that it is a significant and long-standing problem. As my hon. Friend knows, the retirement pension is today at its highest ever level in real terms. It is not widely recognised that, as a proportion of our gross national product, Britain spends the third highest amount of any country in the European Community. Only two countries, Denmark and

France, spend more. If one looks at overall support, not only in terms of the retirement pension, but in terms of occupational pensions and other forms of support, one sees that we are third in the European league table. That is an honourable position.
I shall now deal with British pensioners living abroad. My hon. Friend will realise from his detailed study of this matter that the subject raises difficult issues. I shall set out the background, the nature of the problem, the way in which the Government approach it and the way in which we might, subject to the pre-eminent matter of financial constraint, which my hon. Friend recognised, hope in due course to make progress.
The general rule—and there are exceptions to this rule to which I shall return later — is that United Kingdom pensions paid overseas are paid at the rate in force when the pensioner leaves this country or when he first qualifies for a pension if he is abroad at that time. The pensions are not subsequently uprated. Until 1955, except for Commonwealth countries, United Kingdom pensions were not payable outside this country at all other than for short periods of absence. In July 1955 the law was changed and, for the first time, United Kingdom pensions became payable anywhere in the world. This was a major change in policy. There was, however, no provision for the pensions that were to be paid abroad to be uprated.
At the time that decision was reached it was considered that the social security system was primarily designed for people living in the United Kingdom. The purpose of the review and uprating of pensions was to ensure they retained their value for people living here in relation to the cost of living in this country. As the cost of increasing benefit falls mainly on contributors and employers in the United Kingdom, it was at that time considered unreasonable to ask them to bear the cost of increases paid to people who had voluntarily left the country.
The national insurance fund is run on a pay-as-you-go basis which means that we estimate expenditure each year and set the rate of national insurance contributions in order to produce an income which will broadly match expenditure. It is not always widely recognised that even. today the figures for contributory benefits, nearly £24 billion a year, and the amount raised by national insurance contributions, over £21·5 billion, show the same close correlation which has underlain the contributory principle for nearly 40 years. The estimates of expenditure allow for the fact that pensions paid overseas are, in general, not uprated and would clearly have to be amended were that to be changed. Successive Government have endorsed this policy.
On costs, out of the total £42·5 billion a year which we spend on pensions and benefits, some £338 million is paid to pensioners living outside the United Kingdom. That figure would increase by another £166 million—about 50 per cent. on its present figure at November 1985 rates — if we were to pay all United Kingdom pensions overseas at the same level as pensions paid in this country.
I would like to say something about the bilateral social security conventions that we have with some other countries. Most of them are with our close neighbours—
the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the countries of Europe and Scandanavia—but we also have long-standing agreements with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. They vary widely in scope but exist to protect the social security interests of people moving between the United Kingdom and those other


countries. Many of the conventions provide for pensions to be uprated but not all do. In all, pension increases are paid to only about 40 per cent. of United Kingdom pensioners living abroad, leaving some 60 per cent.—over 220,000—who do not receive pension increases at all.
The United Kingdom pays pensions to over 376,000 pensioners overseas at a total cost of about £338 million a year. We have no accurate information on the total number of pensioners living in this country receiving pensions from overseas. From what we do know—there are, for example, some 4,500 people in this country receiving Australian pensions, something in excess of 3,000 people receiving Canadian pensions and 14,500 people receiving pensions from the United States — it would
seem likely that the total amount of money returning to this country indirectly from those people is very substantially less than the amount of money which we are exporting. We cannot easily afford to increase that imbalance.
As I have said, to bring the pensions of those not already receiving increases up to the level of pensions paid in this country at November 1985 rates would cost about £166 million a year. To pay future costs of living increases alone, ignoring past increases and working again on November 1985 rates, would cost about £22 million in the first year. But that cost would rise significantly over the years until all pensions overseas are paid at the full United Kingdom rates. When that will be, or what the costs will then be, it is not possible to say. There is no comprehensive information on which we can make accurate forecasts. What we can say is that if the number of pensioners were to remain static then, based on the November 1985 rates of benefit, the ultimate extra cost would be that which I quoted earlier for fully uprating existing pensions—no less than £166 million a year.
Government spending is always subject to constraints and priorities. The strict constraints, including the cost of paying cost of living increases to all United Kingdom pensioners overseas, has to be assessed alongside the Government's priorities for other improvements to our social security system. The resources are simply not there to make all the improvements that we would wish.
As for the existing conventions, one may ask about the background to those cases where we have entered into commitments with various overseas countries which do provide for payment of pension increases. The reason is that the negotiations for the bilateral conventions that provide for pensions to be uprated were set in train a considerable time ago, at a time when Government spending, not only of this Government but of former Governments as well, was not subject to such strict constraints as now has to be the case and when the costs were, in any event, significantly lower. In principle, it remains our wish, in suitable circumstances, to negotiate further bilateral conventions which will make similar arrangements for people who retire in a country other than one where they have been working and earned pension rights. Because such arrangements are expensive, we have to hold back on them at present.
Leaving aside the question of financial constraint, whether a bilateral convention is entered into between ourselves and another country depends on a number of factors, including the benefits available under the other

country's scheme, how far reciprocity is possible and the extent to which the advantages to be gained by an agreement outweigh the additional expenditure likely to be incurred by the United Kingdom.
As for Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, I listened with interest to the detailed research that my hon. Friend introduced into his speech. He mentioned United Kingdom pensioners living in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan—some 9,000 in all. The United Kingdom has no bilateral convention on social security with those countries and the United Kingdom pensions paid there are subject to the general rule and are not uprated.
My hon. Friend also mentioned United Kingdom pensioners living in Canada, and I should like also to refer to those who live in Australia and New Zealand. Nearly 179,000 United Kingdom pensioners live in those countries, the largest proportion — almost 99,000—in Australia, more than 56,000 in Canada and more than 23,000 in New Zealand. The United Kingdom has social security arrangements with all three countries dating from the 1950s.
The agreement with Canada is very limited in scope. Although the agreements with Australia and New Zealand are much more comprehensive, none provides for pensions to be uprated. In 1972, the United Kingdom Government proposed a comprehensive agreement with Canada which would have included pension upratings. The Canadian authorities, though, were unable to enter into negotiations.
Officials of my Department and their Canadian counterparts have done some work on preparatory technical matters for a comprehensive convention between the United Kingdom and Canada, but until the necessary finance is available it will not be possible to make any meaningful progress on it.
Officials of my Department have also had discussions with their Australian counterparts about the existing agreement between our two countries, but we have always made it clear that until the money is available, and that is unlikely to be in the foreseeable future, it is not possible for the United Kingdom to enter into negotiations for a revised convention which would include pension uprating. I am sorry to have to give my hon. Friend such disappointing information, but it is important to state that.
My hon. Friend suggested that, as pensioners who live overseas do not use the National Health Service or the social services in this country, there are consequent savings which should be set against the cost of uprating their pensions. I listened carefully to what he said about that, but I regret that it is not possible to quantify any savings of this kind, nor is it possible to trade one thing off against the other in this way.
The National Health Service and social services are part of the social structure available to residents here. They are financed on that basis. We could not give a cash benefit in lieu to people who decided to live overseas any more than we do to people here who opt for making private arrangements.
I am sorry that I cannot hold out hope of an early change in the present arrangements for the payment of United Kingdom pensions overseas, but I am pleased to remind my hon. Friend that we have arranged some improvements in the way in which pensions are paid to


beneficiaries who live abroad. My Department has awarded a contract to the Bank of Scotland to make payments in local currency by overseas credit transfer.
When the new system of payment comes into operation—which I hope will be in the near future—we expect it to be generally more efficient and dependable than the present method. That will be of significant value in some countries. In addition, pensioners should get preferential exchange rates and a reduction in bank charges. The new arrangements will be offered to beneficiaries in countries where payment by automated credit transfer is a practicable and economic alternative.

Mr. Thorne: Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to consult his Treasury colleagues to see whether they might be prepared to take a rather more global view? Such a view would be in the interests of taxpayers, ratepayers and the country.

Mr. LyeII: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said. He has raised some interesting points which I shall most certainly draw to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.